|
Southwest Airlines B-738 'Secret Lavatory Cameras' Lawsuit
This appears to be a variation of one of the old lavatory privacy pranks that pilots would play on flight attendants. Years ago on the 727 a gullible stewardess would be called to the cockpit. After some conversation the captain would have the FE 'check' to see if the forward lav was unoccupied so he could go back. The FE would open some panel (was it fuel dump?) on the aft cockpit bulkhead and pretend to look into the lav to verify that it was available. 'Not many people know about this' etc. and the word would quickly spread among the cabin crew.
In this iPad version of the lav prank one of the pilots records a clip of himself/herself in the lav and later plays it when they go back for the flight attendant in the cockpit to see. Southwest pilots accused by flight attendant of streaming plane bathroom video to cockpit October 26, 2019 / 8:44 AM / CBS News A Southwest Airlines flight attendant alleges in a lawsuit that two pilots streamed airplane bathroom video to the cockpit in February 2017. CBS affiliate KPHO-TV reports that Renee Steinaker said she was working on a flight from Phoenix to Pittsburgh when she went into the cockpit and noticed an iPad mounted to the windshield, live streaming from one of the plane's lavatories. KPHO-TV reports that according to the lawsuit, about two and a half hours into the flight, the pilot, Terry Graham, asked Steinaker to sit in the cockpit while he used the restroom since protocol states that two people must be in the cockpit at all times. Once inside, Steinaker noticed the iPad that she said was live streaming video from the lavatory, where Graham now was. In her lawsuit, she says the co-pilot, Ryan Russell, told her "there was a camera in the lavatory and that it was hidden so no one would ever find it." He also allegedly told her not to tell anyone because it was on the "downlow (sic)." Russell allegedly said "the cameras were new and they were on all of Southwest Airlines 737-800" planes but Steinaker didn't believe him. Steinaker said she took a photo of the iPad and then reported the incident to Southwest Airlines. However, according to court documents, Graham and Russell were never disciplined. According to KPHO, court papers indicate that Steinaker and other flight attendants were told to keep quiet about what they saw. Steinaker was allegedly warned, "if this got out, if this went public, no one, I mean no one, would ever fly our airline again." https://www.cbsnews.com/news/southwest-airlines-pilots-accused-by-flight-attendant-of-streaming-plane-bathroom-video-to-cockpit/ Of course, there really are some folks who put cameras in the lav and get caught: Passenger who installed perv-cam in airplane bathroom pleads guilty A twisted passenger who placed a hidden camera inside the first-class lavatory of a United Airlines flight from California to Texas pleaded guilty this week and could be deported, authorities said. Choon Ping Lee, a Malaysian national, was ordered to pay a $6,000 fine and will spend two months behind bars on video voyeurism charges. Federal prosecutors said a fellow passenger found the device during the May 5 flight from San Diego to Houston. She saw “a strange object with a blue blinking light” hanging by the door and then warned flight attendants, who confirmed it was a camera, according to a news release. Authorities investigated and noticed Lee’s clothing in the recorded footage as he was installing the device. Airport surveillance videos confirmed the outfit matched what he was wearing that day. |
Originally Posted by Airbubba
(Post 10603921)
This appears to be a variation of one of the old lavatory privacy pranks that pilots would play on flight attendants. Years ago on the 727 a gullible stewardess would be called to the cockpit. After some conversation the captain would have the FE 'check' to see if the forward lav was unoccupied so he could go back. The FE would open some panel (was it fuel dump?) on the aft cockpit bulkhead and pretend to look into the lav to verify that it was available. 'Not many people know about this' etc. and the word would quickly spread among the cabin crew.
https://cimg5.ibsrv.net/gimg/pprune....4ee542b5dd.jpg |
Originally Posted by gearlever
(Post 10603931)
|
So the captain has the video going on his ipad, and forgets that it’s playing, as he calls the FA to the cockpit so he can himself go use the lav? And the first officer, doesn’t notice it until the flight attendant points it out? Is that the story we’re expected to believe? I hope they sue her for defamation of character. |
https://cimg2.ibsrv.net/gimg/pprune....9ed75fc420.jpg
https://cimg5.ibsrv.net/gimg/pprune....e9b5ea9f5e.jpg
Originally Posted by The Range
(Post 10604011)
Isn't the galley behind that bulkhead?
|
Gullible stewardesses... er cabin crew still exist! |
Originally Posted by oceancrosser
(Post 10604122)
Gullible stewardesses... er cabin crew still exist! I wouldn't assume that there's no basis for this lawsuit. |
Originally Posted by Airbubba
(Post 10604027)
https://cimg2.ibsrv.net/gimg/pprune....9ed75fc420.jpg
https://cimg5.ibsrv.net/gimg/pprune....e9b5ea9f5e.jpg I believe it is a lav on most passenger B-727-100's and -200's. |
Authorities investigated and noticed Lee’s clothing in the recorded footage as he was installing the device. Airport surveillance videos confirmed the outfit matched what he was wearing that day. |
Originally Posted by OldnGrounded
(Post 10604137)
Maybe. This case is in initial discovery in US District Court and the plaintiffs are represented by a major national personal injury law firm.
From their website: About Baum, Hedlund, Aristei & Goldman In practice for more than 40 years, the law firm of Baum, Hedlund, Aristei & Goldman has obtained more than $4 billion in verdicts and settlements on behalf of clients across all areas of practice. The firm’s aviation attorneys have litigated over 700 cases involving accidents and incidents against some of the largest airlines in the world, including Alaska Airlines, American Airlines, Aero Mexico, Asiana Airlines, British European Airways, China Eastern Airlines, Continental, Delta Airlines, Ethiopian Airlines, EgyptAir, Germanwings, JetBlue, Korean Air, Pacific Southwest Airlines, Singapore Airlines, SAS-Scandinavian Airline Systems, Southwest Airlines, SwissAir, TACA Airlines, TWA, United Airlines, and US Airways, among others. A narrative of the lav cam episode from the attorneys' website: Southwest Airlines Flight Attendant: Pilots Hid Secret Camera in Plane’s Restroom On Feb. 27, 2017, Renee Steinaker was one of four flight attendants working aboard SWA Flight 1088, a non-stop flight from Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, to Phoenix, Arizona. The aircraft, a Boeing 737-800 commercial airliner, was equipped with both forward and aft lavatories for use by the passengers and crew. According to the complaint, roughly two and a half hours into the flight, Captain Terry Graham asked for a flight attendant to come into the cockpit so that he could use the restroom. Southwest Airlines protocol required that there be two crew members in the cockpit at all times. For this reason, if a pilot expressed a need to leave the cockpit for any reason, a flight attendant would be obligated to report to the cockpit and remain there until that pilot returned. Ms. Steinaker responded to the Captain Graham’s request by reporting to the front of the aircraft and entering the cockpit after he exited. Upon entering the cockpit, Steinaker observed an iPad mounted to the windshield left of the flight captain’s seat. On the iPad screen, she saw what appeared to her to be a live streaming video of Graham in the forward lavatory. At that point, First Officer Russell was in command of the aircraft due to the Captain’s absence from the cockpit. Steinaker alleges she asked first officer Ryan Russell whether the iPad was streaming video from a camera in the forward lavatory. According to the allegations, with a panicked look on his face, Russell admitted that it was live streaming. The lawsuit states that Steinaker had used the forward lavatory during the flight, as had other passengers, including young children. In confessing that the live stream camera was functioning, Russell tried to convince Steinaker that cameras were a top-secret security measure that had been installed in the lavatories of all Southwest Airlines’ 737-800 planes, the lawsuit alleges; at the same time Russell then “ordered” that Steinaker not say a word to anyone about the cameras or the recording she had seen, because she was not supposed to know about this new security measure. He also indicated that the camera was hidden in the lavatory so that no one would ever find it, the lawsuit states. Steinaker advised Russell that she wanted to document her observations to report the issue because she believed she had witnessed criminal or unlawful conduct. She pulled out her mobile phone and took a picture of the iPad which, at the time, displayed Graham in the restroom. According to the complaint, when Graham came back into the cockpit from the lavatory, Russell left the cockpit and went to the same lavatory that Graham had used. While Steinaker was alone in the cockpit with Graham, she confronted him about the cameras, though he refused to respond to any of her questions. Grahamthen allegedly blocked Steinaker’s view of the iPad by positioning his arm and shoulder in a manner that obstructed her line of sight. After she left the cockpit, Steinaker shared her observations with the other flight attendants and showed them the picture she had taken in the cockpit. When the plane arrived in Phoenix, Graham and Russell immediately disembarked, leaving the plane unattended by piloting staff. According to the lawsuit, this was both unusual and a violation of Southwest Airlines protocol. https://www.baumhedlundlaw.com/10-19...mera-lavatory/ It will be interesting to see how Southwest and the unions handle this case. Will Southwest fire the pilots based on the accusations? Remember the Alaska Air captain who was fired after an F/O filed a lawsuit claiming she was raped by him? Her subsequent behavior and anecdotal employment history raised serious questions about her credibility in my view. |
Even if this is a prank, it's foolish. We now have pilots focused on executing this prank, we have a breakdown in communication and trust between cabin crew and flight-deck. You have cabin-crew focused on this "hidden camera" and possibly losing focus on cabin safety.
All of these factors could (and likely will) come to nothing...but it seems like these pilots just put a bunch of unnecessary holes into the Swiss cheese... |
Originally Posted by Airbubba
(Post 10604246)
These lawyers claim to make a living suing airlines it seems. The claim is very likely true. That Martindale Hubbel "AV Preeminent" rating is pretty good evidence that other lawyers think they're very successful. That usually means profitable. It will be interesting to see how Southwest and the unions handle this case. Will Southwest fire the pilots based on the accusations? Remember the Alaska Air captain who was fired after an F/O filed a lawsuit claiming she was raped by him? Her subsequent behavior and anecdotal employment history raised serious questions about her credibility in my view. I have no idea what really happened with the alleged lav-cam episode. I just doubt that it's entirely a lie or fantasy on the FA's part, because it probably wouldn't have gotten as far as it has if there were no evidence beyond her accusation. Remember, the complaint says she showed a photo of the iPad image of the captain in the lav to coworkers, contemporaneously. We shall see . . . |
Southwest issued another statement on Saturday that seems to confirm the airline's position that the incident was the result of a flight crew prank.
Court filings by attorneys for Dallas-based Southwest and the two pilots denied the livestreaming allegations, and Southwest on Saturday issued statements saying it will vigorously contest the suit and denying it places cameras in aircraft lavatories. "When the incident happened two years ago, we investigated the allegations and addressed the situation with the crew involved," the company's second statement said. "We can confirm from our investigation that there was never a camera in the lavatory; the incident was an inappropriate attempt at humor which the company did not condone." The suit against Southwest, a company known for its joking and irreverent behavior by flight crews, and the two pilots was announced Saturday by attorneys for Steinaker and her husband, also a Southwest flight attendant. https://www.chron.com/news/texas/art...m-14564968.php |
Originally Posted by Airbubba
(Post 10604534)
Southwest issued another statement on Saturday that seems to confirm the airline's position that the incident was the result of a flight crew prank.
|
Originally Posted by OldnGrounded
(Post 10604549)
Yup. If that turns out to be correct, the lawyers at Baum Hedland will have wasted a lot of time, energy and money. They have a pair of senior partners on the case.
|
Some people don't have a sense of humor.
|
Originally Posted by compressor stall
(Post 10604745)
They're probably aware that it was a prank, but are going after the emotional distress angle / workplace harassment angle.
From the lawyers' site linked above: In the days following the incident, Ms. Steinaker became physically ill at the recognition that Graham and Russell had watched and possibly recorded her, fellow crew members, and passengers disrobing and using the toilet. She was unable to work for several days, sought counseling, and continues to have physical, emotional, and mental injuries as a result of the incident. The lawsuit alleges that Southwest Airlines was negligent in hiring, retaining, and supervising Graham and Russell. Despite actual or constructive knowledge of the pilots’ aberrant propensities and actions, the lawsuit maintains that Southwest Airlines breached its duty of care to its employees by failing to take reasonable actions to protect Ms. Steinaker from Graham and/or Russell’s unlawful conduct on Flight 1088 and any subsequent flights on which she may be ordered to work with either of them. Furthermore, Steinaker contends that, by permitting Graham and Russell to continue flying passengers and crew members without supervision or punishment, knowing that Renee Steinaker is not to discuss the incident with “anyone,” and by failing to inspect the aircraft that Graham and Russell fly to ensure that cameras are not installed in lavatories, Southwest allegedly inflicted and continues to inflict serious physical injury and emotional distress upon her. |
Originally Posted by Raffles S.A.
(Post 10604774)
Some people don't have a sense of humor.
|
Originally Posted by KRviator
(Post 10604873)
Some people don't understand you can't pull these kinds of workplace shenanigans anymore.
|
Having a fair amount of experience with lawyers, they don't waste their own money, and as is most likely this turns out as a prank it has no bearing on the fact that the plaintiffs are looking for damages for mental anguish etc. Pretty sure that the lawyers and protagonists will come our with a bunch load of notes. |
Mental anguish? Emotional distress? From being pranked?
Meanwhile, in the Third World, people are dying due to Polio and Malaria. Some princess is clearly detached from reality. |
Originally Posted by malr
(Post 10604277)
Even if this is a prank, it's foolish. We now have pilots focused on executing this prank, we have a breakdown in communication and trust between cabin crew and flight-deck. You have cabin-crew focused on this "hidden camera" and possibly losing focus on cabin safety.
All of these factors could (and likely will) come to nothing...but it seems like these pilots just put a bunch of unnecessary holes into the Swiss cheese... What does not make sense to me in the whole story is why when confronted one of the pilots did not simply say "gotcha" and explain how the prank was done. Had they done that I doubt we would be hearing about a lawsuit. |
Originally Posted by MurphyWasRight
(Post 10605159)
What does not make sense to me in the whole story is why when confronted one of the pilots did not simply say "gotcha" and explain how the prank was done.
Had they done that I doubt we would be hearing about a lawsuit. Much of the hazing and tomfoolery that was traditional in the flying business years ago has succumbed to the inevitable march of political correctness in the workplace. One of the apparent claims in the lawsuit is that the airline didn't preserve the CVR and iPad for evidence against the pilots. Many airlines seem to have a crew bus story about a mixed-gender flight crew where one of the pilots claimed to be harassed but the accused was saved in the hearing since the CVR circuit breaker was discreetly pulled to preserve exculpatory evidence. In some versions of the story I've heard over the years the flight does an air turnback or diverts. I've always been skeptical of these tales since in the U.S. the CVR is supposedly protected from being used for company disciplinary purposes. On the other hand, the company iPad is fair game for inspection I believe and some idiots will inevitably find a way to put stuff on it that doesn't belong. Some airlines lock down the tablets with monitoring apps so that everything is logged, others, e.g. Delta seem to allow personal email and pictures and assume that pilots are mature enough to use the company devices prudently. Based on past experience I'm not so sure that's a good assumption. |
It was a prank within the crew. No paying customer offended. No real camera involved.
No need to blow this out of proportion. Bad taste? Maybe - but not more. |
Originally Posted by Less Hair
(Post 10605835)
No paying customer offended.
No real camera involved. Steinaker alleges she asked first officer Ryan Russell whether the iPad was streaming video from a camera in the forward lavatory. According to the allegations, with a panicked look on his face, Russell admitted that it was live streaming. |
Originally Posted by Less Hair
(Post 10605835)
It was a prank within the crew. No paying customer offended. No real camera involved.
No need to blow this out of proportion. Bad taste? Maybe - but not more. As I speculated above had one of the pilots pointed out that it was a prank - at the time, not later - I doubt there would be a lawsuit. Allowing the affected crew member to continue to believe that she had been watched seems a bit cruel and goes beyond 'harmless prank'. Also the plaintiffs attorney could also make the argument that it was not a prank (real camera) and the pilots covered it up later by saying it was a prank. NB: I don't consider this to be at all likely but Southwest left themselves open to this (according to filling at least) by not fully investigating/preserving evidence such as the i-pod, |
Southwest has declared no camera was involved. Nobody got streamed from the lav.
It might very well be bad taste to scare the flight attendants but it is so hard to judge over incidents that were meant to be humorous. I am not suggesting to do or repeat something like that but the reaction is a bit overblown isn't it? It should be resolved within the crew and company if it really was what has been claimed. To me it sounds more like she should be invited to some really expensive dinner or similar instead of going to court over this. Again I am not supporting rude pranks but some humor and fun must remain possible. Especially within crews that face many strange situations and people all the time. |
Originally Posted by Less Hair
(Post 10605918)
Southwest has declared no camera was involved. Nobody got streamed from the lav.
It might very well be bad taste to scare the flight attendants but it is so hard to judge over incidents that were meant to be humorous. I am not suggesting to do or repeat something like that but the reaction is a bit overblown isn't it? It should be resolved within the crew and company if it really was what has been claimed. To me it sounds more like she should be invited to some really expensive dinner or similar instead of going to court over this. Again I am not supporting rude pranks but some humor and fun must remain possible. Especially within crews that face many strange situations and people all the time. |
No streaming camera. Nobody inside the lav could be remotely filmed from the cockpit. This is why there is no need to react like there was one. It would be entirely different if some perv would actually film people on the loo.
|
Originally Posted by Less Hair
(Post 10605930)
Nobody inside the lav could be remotely filmed from the cockpit.
|
Originally Posted by Less Hair
(Post 10605930)
No streaming camera. Nobody inside the lav could be remotely filmed from the cockpit. This is why there is no need to react like there was one. It would be entirely different if some perv would actually film people on the loo.
As to "react like there was one" from the lawsuit it reads like the pilots did a good job of convincing her that there was one. The damages claimed relate mostly to distress caused by believing she had been watched, not that whether or not she actually had been. Another way to think about this: Using an unloaded gun in a robbery is still an armed robbery felony, likewise threatening someone to get something is still extortion even if the threat is not executable as long as the victim believes that it is. Good example of that is the internet spam/scam that threatens to publicly release a users porn viewing history even though the spammer has no such thing. This works because users who don't view porn (or dont care who knows) ignore it but some will take the bait and fork over money or ID information. |
Originally Posted by MurphyWasRight
(Post 10605974)
Next time you are in the lav on an AC see if the inflight wifi is available, if so there is no technical reason that a perv could not do a livestream.
Or will Apple's iOS mirroring somehow get around this? The lawyers are starting to work the news media, perhaps hoping that Southwest will quickly settle the lawsuit and make this unsavory publicity go away. As is the custom, the attorneys will profess that they are taking this legal action for the betterment of humankind and the workplace and the fact that they are asking for money is purely coincidental. ;) From an interview with ABC News published Monday: In her lawsuit against the airline, she claims that she made the discovery when she went into the cockpit during a February 2017 flight from Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, to Phoenix, Arizona. She was in the cockpit so the captain could use the lavatory, she said. "When I walked into the cockpit, I noticed that his iPad was located on the window and on it appeared a picture of the pilot. And I looked further and I realized that it was our pilot, the captain in the lavatory, and then I looked even further. I stared at it and realized that the picture was moving. So, it appeared to be a livestreaming video of the captain in the lavatory," she told ABC News in an interview on Monday. She said she asked the first officer, who was in the cockpit with her, about the video. The first officer said that it was new streaming system and that the camera "was hidden so that no one would ever find it," Steinaker said in court papers. She told ABC News on Monday that the information came to her as a "complete shock."It occurred to her (Steinaker) that she, having used the lavatory, as had many of the other attendants and passengers, had likely been filmed," her lawyer Ronald Goldman said in a previous ABC News interview. Her lawsuit said that when Steinaker was back on the ground, after the plane had landed, she reported the incident to the airline but she claims in court documents she was directed by Southwest Airlines to keep what she'd seen to herself. "It is ... clear from its statement that Southwest palmed this egregious event off as a joke, and it still fails to recognize the gravity of the harassment and threat to the safety of the flight. A purpose of this suit is to make sure that the culture that treats sexual harassment and hostile working environments at 30,000 feet as a joke will, it is hoped, end with the successful conclusion of this lawsuit," Goldman said in a statement to ABC News. https://abcnews.go.com/US/southwest-...l_twitter_abcn |
Originally Posted by Airbubba
(Post 10606025)
Are you sure? Don't most aircraft wifi networks block video and VOIP traffic?
Or will Apple's iOS mirroring somehow get around this? In any case it would show that the lav was not shielded so even if traffic is blocked on the internal wifi net a direct (peer to peer) connection to a device in the cockpit would likely work just fine. In fact a hypothetical perv might go this route to reduce chances of detection. |
Of all the 'professional' people on this board, pray tell where would one hide such a device in the lav? The size of an iPhone would be realistic, plus some kind of mount, even be it double sided tape. Practically all surfaces of the lav are plastic plates secured to the bulkhead. Apart from actually drilling those and assembling a camera behind them, there is no realistic location where such a device could be placed quickly and without prohibited tools... Some people should really first think what is possible and realistic before going all panic mode about a reasonably impossible situation...
|
Originally Posted by Less Hair
(Post 10605930)
No streaming camera. Nobody inside the lav could be remotely filmed from the cockpit. This is why there is no need to react like there was one. It would be entirely different if some perv would actually film people on the loo.
It's almost like this 'prank' is also on readers of this forum. It seems the FA is as confused as I am as to whether a camera was in the Lav or not! No one seems to have connected the dots. So for others like me, who don't quite get it, if there is a moving image of the Captain in the toilet on an iPad on the flight deck, (and no one seems to doubt this) and it is not actually live, then it must be pre-recorded. There's the joke on the FA. She is seeing what she thinks is a live stream (no pun intended) and this is confirmed by the FO as he reinforces the prank. We are in the 21st century where people taking pictures and video of people toileting or up clothing appears to be a far too common practice. Sometimes it's for uploading to porn sites or sharing sites, and at other times it is for self gratification. It's not just your street cleaner who does this either. Professional people with status have also had spectacular falls from grace over this: https://www.stuff.co.nz/national/cri...ealand-embassy Women are primarily the targets but these sorts of activities capture children too. This can end up on pedophile sites. So, some say let's not get upset about it, no one was actually recorded (except the Captains selfie), so have a sense of humour and move on. I'm sorry but I cant subscribe to that moronic response. Women should expect to feel safe especially in high altitude environments where they can't just leave! This is one of those situations where the boys club just doesn't understand the harassment that women have to deal with in every day life. Back in the day we didn't know any better (if that is any kind of excuse) but I would have to lived under a rock for my sixty plus years to not understand the political, social media and legal movements that now highlight and disgrace those who choose to show little respect for others privacy and dignity. The FA in this case is understandably disturbed by the 'prank' since without a clear investigation it's difficult to tell what else might have happened. It is this doubt that hurts the most and I imagine continues each time she fly's. They see it as a harmless tease. She see's it as a threat to her dignity that could have ended up on the internet forever. The fact that these 'professional's thought 'teasing' her in this way would be fun just beggars belief. The tech crew have shown a complete disregard for common decency and the safety and respect of their crew for which they have a responsibility. They are in charge so there is a power imbalance here too. (" It's a secret..don't tell anyone"). #metoo anyone? |
What the hell has happened to this industry? It used to be fun.
Years ago, my company appointed a new firm to clean and valet the a/c. A couple of days previously, I had left a packet of chocolate biscuits in the cockpit and these had become a molten mess; as an act of innocent devilment, I smeared some chocolate on the mirror inside the lavatory. We had a couple of secretaries who stood in as air hostesses and I asked one to inspect the interior while I did the outside checks. It wasn't long before I was summoned up the steps to witness what was thought to be a dereliction on the part of the cleaners. I wiped off a finger-full and ate it. The poor girl nearly fainted but her ashen face changed immediately when I explained things and she became convulsed in laughter. It's an old airline joke but was new to her and we still laugh about it 40 years later when we occasionally meet. The world has become full of humourless, snowflake litigants. I'm so glad I'm retired from it. |
Originally Posted by Flight Alloy
(Post 10606061)
Of all the 'professional' people on this board, pray tell where would one hide such a device in the lav? The size of an iPhone would be realistic, plus some kind of mount, even be it double sided tape.
https://cimg2.ibsrv.net/gimg/pprune....0b587532c1.jpg Inside the smoke detector housing? |
Originally Posted by Gipsy Queen
(Post 10606084)
I wiped off a finger-full and ate it. The poor girl nearly fainted but her ashen face changed immediately when I explained things and she became convulsed in laughter.
It's an old airline joke but was new to her and we still laugh about it 40 years later when we occasionally meet. The world has become full of humourless, snowflake litigants. I'm so glad I'm retired from it. 1: You tasted the "substance", closer to current case would be if you had somehow induced her to taste it and then revealed it's alleged 'source'. (I have heard that peanut butter can also be used...) 2: The current case target was not let in on the joke at the time, yours was. BTW: I am not at all supporting the 'contingent fee lawyers' practices, as has been noted it -is- about the money but believe there were missed (likely several) opportunities to keep this out of court. |
This conversation between FO Russell and the plaintive FA must have been awkward with Russell’s O2 mask on, but surely they were cruising at FL250 or below. |
Originally Posted by Switzer
(Post 10606191)
This conversation between FO Russell and the plaintive FA must have been awkward with Russell’s O2 mask on, but surely they were cruising at FL250 or below. Don't know if she was plaintive but she's one of the plaintiffs. ;) Some airlines are a lot more compliant with that O2 mask rule than others in my anecdotal observation. The NTSB has wanted cockpit cameras for years to audit that and other operational compliance issues for 'safety' purposes. Maybe the lav camera program is all they could get right now. Just kidding, of course. Airbus has plans to offer cameras to monitor lavatory usage according to this recent news item. Cameras outside the TOILETS could be coming to the 'connected' airline cabins of the futureBy JENNIFER NEWTON FOR MAILONLINEPUBLISHED: 08:28 EDT, 3 October 2019 | UPDATED: 11:51 EDT, 3 October 2019 Cameras outside the toilets could be coming to airline cabins in the not-very-distant future. That's if Airbus's 'connected' cabins take off. They're being trialled now, and one version has cameras outside the toilets that the aircraft manufacturer says will help crew redirect passengers to other bathrooms if there is a long queue and signal when someone has spent an unusually long time inside. Earlier this year it was revealed that several carriers including Singapore Airlines, American Airlines, Delta Air Lines and United Airlines, have cameras embedded in seatback entertainment screens. Singapore said the cameras were disabled, but it led to speculation that in-screen working cameras could be used to spy on passengers during flights in the future. The three US airlines also said that they had never activated the cameras and had no plans to use them. The new Airbus cabin, called the Airspace Connected Experience, will also be fitted with wireless sensors to collect on-board data about passenger habits, as we reported last year. Sensors embedded in the seats will relay how often a passenger goes to the lavatory, their sleeping patterns and what angle they recline their chair to. https://www.dailymail.co.uk/travel/t...e-toilets.html |
| All times are GMT. The time now is 21:35. |
Copyright © 2024 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.