Qantas Frequent Flyer - QF37 diverted by passenger assault

Yesterday QF 37 MEL-WLG was turned around about 40 minutes into the flight. A clearly very mentally unstable female passenger assaulted another passenger and had to be restrained by the crew. The flight returned to MEL where federal police boarded the plane and removed the by now hand cuffed woman. The flight was delayed 5 hours before a new plane and crew were provided.

While the in-flight crew behaved professionally and handled the situation well I have serious concerns about the ground crew. The woman was clearly - pardon the expression - a nut case. She had been walking about the departure lounge screaming and shouting about god and the internet and wifi. Instead of denying her boarding the ground crew - to my amazement - rushed her onboard the aircraft. It didn't take half a degree in psychiatry to see this woman was deranged and in need of mental health care. I was just waiting for the moment she would go off during the flight, and sure enough...
She should never have been allowed to board. A dangerous situation was created. A huge inconvenience was created for a lot of people (I missed my connection and had to stay overnight in WLG) - not to mention the cost to the airline.

So my real concern is with the ground crew.
Does anyone know what kind of training they get in spotting such passengers etc?

Has anyone had similar experience?

Interesting point - I think the police need to intervene more. If the ground crew saw her actions, they could have let security/fed police watch her. They are probably better at handling the situation and ulimately denying her boarding.

Maybe its the general AUstralian assumption that "she'll be right mate" or "don't dobb" that stopped staff doing anything.

OTOH, the other day I was in a queue to buy some coffee in PDX (after security) and the 2 airline staff in front of me were discussing a nearby unattended bag (with baby seat, and mug of hot coffee next to it) - pretty obviously the owner had just wandered off for some reason. They were in the process of calling the TSA for bag removal & destruction when the owner reappeared.

Different country - different attitide.

pretty obviously the owner had just wandered off for some reason.

Not having a go or anything but what makes you say that? Do terrorists leave notes on their bags saying "this is a bomb"?

It's the bad guys duty to make their actions/devices look as "pretty obviously" benign as possible.

I'm also not sure it's a TSA/American thing. I was in the QF Dom Business lounge in MEL a couple of weeks ago and left my carry-on on my chair while I went and got a coffee and some toast and, in that less than 5 minute period, AFP was already standing at my table and checking out my bag when I got back.

As someone who has been there and done that, my experience is as follows:

AFP cannot act unless an offence has been detected. If an offence has been detected, they can then intervene, but if no offence has been detected, then interbention from the AFP is not possible. This is true of police agencies around the world, and is only right and proper, you cannot have police agencies interveining because they think an offence "might" be comitted.

Ground staff are certainly trained in RSA, as part of general ground handling duties.

I often denied boarding to intoxicated passengers, and it happens a few times a week.

Now I kow that the OP was not insinuating that the passenger concerned was intoxicated, but I am stating that ground staff are indeed trained as to who should be allowed on board and who shouldn't.

Without defending the ground staff, and reading dispassionately the OP's description of the on-ground incident, this really should have been escalated before boarding commenced.

Not sure about MEL, but QF in SYD certainly have a medical centre, with trained medical staff who could have been called on to observe and make a decision as to the suitability of the passenger to board the flight. (From what I have read, she wasn't fit to board, but then I wasn't there).

So ground staff are indeed trained, it sounds like (from what has been posted) they handled it badly, they should have escalated it, they didn't, and a turn-back ensued.

If it had been me, I certainly would have escalated it, for no other reason than to cover my backside, make it someone else's problem if it all blows up.

Dave

AFP cannot act unless an offence has been detected.

Not sure about MEL, but QF in SYD certainly have a medical centre, with trained medical staff who could have been called on to observe and make a decision as to the suitability of the passenger to board the flight.

Dave

Not entirely true, Dave, AFP can sometimes take action even when there has meen no crime. Examples include pax with psychiatric or medical issues (such as a diabetic with low blood sugar).

I'd also say that her actions prior to boarding ("She had been walking about the departure lounge screaming and shouting about god and the internet and wifi.") could be classified as disturbing the peace or similar, which is a crime if done voluntarily and not as a result of a medical condition, etc.

MEL does have a medical centre (or at least they did about 7 years ago) but I don't know if it's QF specific and I don't know if they make "fitness for flight" decisions there.

"She had been walking about the departure lounge screaming and shouting about god and the internet and wifi.

I assume there was internet availability and that wifi was not frustratingly slow? :D

I'm also not sure it's a TSA/American thing. I was in the QF Dom Business lounge in MEL a couple of weeks ago and left my carry-on on my chair while I went and got a coffee and some toast and, in that less than 5 minute period, AFP was already standing at my table and checking out my bag when I got back.

Really? I do this ALL the time in the Dom J lounges in SYD, MEL and BNE while I get breakfast, brush my teeth etc. Never once has the AFP been hovering...

AFP cannot act unless an offence has been detected. If an offence has been detected, they can then intervene, but if no offence has been detected, then interbention from the AFP is not possible. This is true of police agencies around the world, and is only right and proper, you cannot have police agencies interveining because they think an offence "might" be comitted.

From the Metropolitan Police (London) website (http://www.met.police.uk/stopandsearch/what_is.htm):

Section 60 Criminal Justice and Public Order Act 1994, gives police the right to search people in a defined area at a specific time when they believe, with good reason, that: there is the possibility of serious violence; or that a person is carrying a dangerous object or offensive weapon.

ie Without an offence being detected.

I daresay, there are other police agencies around the world with even less restrictions on how they can act, than the Met!

From the Metropolitan Police (London) website (http://www.met.police.uk/stopandsearch/what_is.htm):

Section 60 Criminal Justice and Public Order Act 1994, gives police the right to search people in a defined area at a specific time when they believe, with good reason, that: there is the possibility of serious violence; or that a person is carrying a dangerous object or offensive weapon.

ie Without an offence being detected.

I daresay, there are other police agencies around the world with even less restrictions on how they can act, than the Met! Oh puh-leeze, you are honestly citing a jurisdiction where personal rights have been so eroded that they are almost non-existent?

(This is getting way off-topic now). Try brushing up on the Police and Criminal Evidence Act to see just how much the right to silence has been reduced.

In Australia, police agencies can only intervene if they have reasonable grounds to believe that a criminal offence is about to be, is being or has been committed. That is it, under common law.

An airport, being subject to different legislation compared to other places, might be different, but it certainly wasn't when I worked there (although that is getting on to about 16 years ago now).

I still think ground staff should have called on medical syaff to assess whether the passenger was fit to board, and that it was not a police matter at that stage.

Dave

http://www.stuff.co.nz/travel/travel-troubles/7041760/Grandmothers-trans-Tasman-air-rage

I assume there was internet availability and that wifi was not frustratingly slow? :D

Imagine her ranting at the OW lounge at TBIT....:eek::eek::eek:

Really? I do this ALL the time in the Dom J lounges in SYD, MEL and BNE while I get breakfast, brush my teeth etc. Never once has the AFP been hovering...

Yeah, kind of surprised me too. Especially since I was less than 15 metres from my bag, it was within eyesight and I had only left it for less than 5 minutes! I even saw the AFP guy and said G'Day to him as he walked by. But in all fairness, there was no way for him to know that it was my bag, that I was still observing it, etc, etc....

Just saw this on news.com.au:

A NEW Zealand woman is facing up to two years' jail for allegedly attacking a passenger on an international flight from Melbourne.

Frances Macaskill, 58, allegedly assaulted a man on Jetconnect's QF37 from Melbourne to Wellington on Saturday morning.

Jetconnect cabin crew allegedly had to restrain her and turn the aircraft back to Melbourne, an hour into the flight.

The man needed treatment from a doctor as a result of the incident.

Macaskill was taken off the aircraft by Australian Federal Police at Melbourne Airport and arrested.

AAP reports the incident inconvenienced Qantas to the tune of $19,760.

She is due to appear in Melbourne Magistrates' Court today on charges of assault, failure to follow instructions on an aircraft and offensive behavior on an aircraft.

The AFP said in a statement that the charges had maximum penalties of up to two years' jail or a $5500 fine.

AFP Assistant Commissioner Shane Connelly said this kind of behaviour was unacceptable.

"The AFP will not hesitate to charge anyone behaving in a manner that may interfere with the safe operation of an aircraft," he said.

"This kind of behaviour puts fellow passengers and cabin crew members at risk and will not be tolerated."

http://www.news.com.au/travel/news/woman-facing-jail-over-alleged-attack-on-passenger-during-flight-from-melbourne-to-wellington/story-e6frfq80-1226383453694

Oh puh-leeze, you are honestly citing a jurisdiction where personal rights have been so eroded that they are almost non-existent?

I was merely trying to illustrate that in getting of a plane at Heathrow, for example, would not afford you the same behaviour from a police agency that you'd expect in Australia.

[QUOTE=thadocta;18693099](This is getting way off-topic now). /QUOTE]

Agree entirely ... as I do with everything else you've posted on this topic.

Regards,

BD

SMH article
http://www.smh.com.au/travel/travel-incidents/drunk-grandmother-punched-qantas-passenger-aboard-flight-20120604-1zrq2.html

No mention of behaviour in the terminal/ gate.

To the OP - are you sure staff were aware of the behaviour on the ground.
If I as a pax had observed the behaviour you described I would have been having a quiet word with staff.

Absolutely.
One of the gate staff attendance went over to the woman and told her that she could not behave like that (screaming and shouting) and if she did that on the plane she would be removed. The woman - clearly unstable - responded "Oh no, I'll behave myself on the plane, I just want them all to know . muffle.. muffle... about this". And then to my amazement the same gate staff wished her past everyone else on board the plane. This was at that very moment I was going through the gate, and I said to the (other) gate attendant: "you are not going to let her board, are you? She is not mentally well." Either the gate attendant did not hear me or disagreed, because she gave be a blank stare, and did not respond.

I then assumed things had been cleared with the flight crew and even the captain so I did not take it further - in retrospect that was unwise of me.

I have now seen on the news that the woman has been barred from QF for the next ten years, and that a QF spokesperson has come forward and said: "we will not tolerate that kind of behaviour".

I think that is too easy. It is easy to put the blame on the woman - who in my assessment is mentally ill (she may well have been drunk as well). But the real problem lies with within the system. Why was she allowed to board in the first place? Why did the gate attendant not recognise the potential danger? Why did she not have the training or knowledge to escalate the issue? And if she did why was the woman not given further evaluation?

So instead of just barring the woman and say the equivalent of "you bad person" I think QF needs to come forward and say: "our processes were flawed, and we allowed an unstable passenger to fly. We will look at our processes and make adjustments". That would to me show transparency and a willingness to learn from an unfortunate outcome.

[mod hat]

I think this thread might be past is use by date. So unless you really have to add something new it might be time to move on.

And just a quick reminder that when you quote news articles to not post the entire text, a few lines and a link will do.

http://www.flyertalk.com/help/rules.php#q91

[/mod hat]

Following on from moa999's article. In summary, the passenger was fined $3,500 and will have compensate Qantas for its costs in turning the flight around ($18,245). She was also sentenced to four months jail suspended for two years.

Full article: http://www.smh.com.au/travel/travel-incidents/air-rage-granny-to-pay-18245-to-qantas-20120605-1ztmd.html

Finally a decent sentence considering not just the cost of the return, but the inconvienece to other passengers, particularly if they had connections.

TIV - I would pass on your feedback directly to the airline. They may not have been aware of your observations - it isn't about pointing fingers, more pointing out an obvious flaw in thier processes.

Interesting, the SMH article didn't mention that she had also been banned for 10 years from flying on any Qantas Group aircraft like the NZ Herald does ...
http://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=10810855
She has been banned for 10 years from flying with Qantas Group, which includes Jetstar and Jetconnect.
... although some would argue that that is not necessarily a punishment