Newsstand - Mother and autistic child removed from flight

Without comment...

http://abclocal.go.com/wtvd/story?section=news/local&id=6223045

"He was on the floor rolling around." During taxi????

Sounds harsh, but imho the pilot did the right thing....

Saw her on GMA this morning. She said "if they'd have just given me more time I could have calmed him down."

She also mentioned that on an earlier flight the FA had let him roll around on the floor and walk in the aisles during taxi. She said she was sitting in bulkhead seat and on earlier flight FA had let her keep a bag of toys at her feet during take-off and landing to keep her child calm.

I would side with the airline on this one. She got away with breaking a lot of FAA regs on the earlier flights.

What about the rights of the other customers who would have potentially suffered through an entire flight of screaming?

If children cannot be controlled, they need to be taken off the flight, just like parents should remove screaming children from restaurants, theaters, etc. Better to do it on the ground than risk a few hours of hell in the air.

What about the rights of the other customers who would have potentially suffered through an entire flight of screaming?

If children cannot be controlled, they need to be taken off the flight, just like parents should remove screaming children from restaurants, theaters, etc. Better to do it on the ground than risk a few hours of hell in the air.

Its a sticky situation to be sure, especially when the child in question is autistic or otherwise mentally afflicted.

I was on a UX flight on a CR7 last year in an almost identical situation: three adults traveling with a 4-5 year old who WOULD NOT sit still and/or stay in his seat. He was literally running up and down the aisle and at one point actually ran up into the cockpit (this was while still at the gate). The FA reprimanded the parent(s) several times and threatened to have them removed. The melee continued until we we lifted off and then the kid went to sleep and didn't wake up until after we landed.

Had that kid not gone to sleep it would've been a painfully long IAD-JAX flight. I can sympathize with parents of antsy toddlers/crying babies, but that problem is still there's. I didn't pay to deal with it in a confined space for 2+ hours. @:-)

Craig

Missing from this story is whether or not the flight crew were warned ahead of time that they were dealing with a special needs child. If so, perhaps the mother could have provided them with information up front on how best to deal with the child, and the flight crew could have explained that no matter what the child would have to remain calm and obey regulations.

Having a commotion going on in the cabin is a distraction to the pilots and puts everyone on the plane at risk.

The sad fact is that not every person may be able to fly. If a child is unable, even for medical reasons, to control himself, then for the safety and comfort of everyone else on the plane that child should not be allowed to fly.

I hope this isn't a repost, but I didn't see it in the AA forum or in here.

http://abclocal.go.com/wtvd/story?section=news/local&id=6223045

*SNIP*

I fail to see the problem here. Unruly kid removed from flight. Next.

Good, it's about time a carrier actually showed some balls in dealing with kids when parents won't or can't.

The mother is taking the wrong approach with the media. She should know by now that just because she has a special needs child, the world does not owe her the red carpet treatment. She should know the risks of traveling with her child in a strange/new environment. Loosing a battle with the kid from time to time is a distinct possibility, even for parents of children without special needs.

AA rightfully applied the rules across the board and didn't cut any slack. They really can't because once they do it, then everyone wants it. I'd like to bring my dog along with me on every flight, she helps to keep ME calm but I don't have that luxury.

BTW, I have a bag of toys for my dog too - they last about 5 minutes!

one telling quote is "rolling around on the floor"; this is AFTER the seatbelt has been checked and tightened several times by the FA. IMO, AA did the right thing.

Good, it's about time a carrier actually showed some balls in dealing with kids when parents won't or can't.

The mother is taking the wrong approach with the media. She should know by now that just because she has a special needs child, the world does not owe her the red carpet treatment.

Amen.

I work full time w/ children on the Autism spectrum. In today's "people first" educational correctness, we don't say "autistic child", we say, "child with autism", putting who he is before what he goes through.

I've taken kids on countless trips on unfamiliar modes of transportation countless times...challenging to be sure, but very do-able. A lot is missing from the story. A lot of common, every-day best-practice measures in working with children this age on the autism spectrum are just absent from this. It's sad, because at the beginning of the summer travel season, this COULD have been a GREAT story for parents on how to get "your" children w/ autism ready for a trip. It could have been a success story on the child making the trip. Any parent with a child like that could have shown how do-able it is, and the steps to make it happen.

One of my families was to be taking a trip over the summer, and his entire therapy team & parents spent no small amount of time going over the trip and what would need to be done, made, prepared, rehearsed, etc. to make it successful for the child. That's not uncommon practice, and there's no mention of it here.

It should have been the mother, & not the FA, doing the seat-belt tugging, etc. as mom would have been a familiar person to him. I'm not clear as to why the mother did not redirect the FA to let her/mother do the talking.
If the FA was indeed repeatedly tugging at the child's belt, tapping the child on the shoulder, addressing him directly, that wouldn't sit well with him. The seat belts themselves would not have been unfamiliar to the child, nor would his mother's exhortations to put them on---unless neither have ever ridden together in a car, which I doubt. It doesn't say if this is the child's first time ever on an airplane.

It's common practice with children w/ ASD to use some kind of schedule page or schedule book, especially with new/unfamiliar routines. Sometimes it's a simple strip of small card-sized icons/symbols of the different steps in a process (Google "Boardmaker" software for examples, or PECS, etc.). One for an airplane flight could easily fit into a TSA-sized baggie, with the strip of paper/card stock to velcro the icons to, and the cards/icons. It doesn't need an overhead bin at all. There's no mention of an attempt at this. There's also no mention of any prior attempt to "rehearse" with the child the order of things to happen, well in advance of the trip. With early-childhood-aged kids like this one, it's REALLY common for parents/teachers to put the sequence to a simple, easily-remembered song. In a lot of "autism" early childhood rooms, they're singing all day long. A simple, "let's quietly sing the plane song" might have done wonders.

The parents could have easily "rehearsed" this all with the child, outlining what steps are involved, putting together a simple paper-sized "schedule strip" with a few pictures/symbols/icons for the things he'd be encountering.

There are plenty of smaller sensory play items that could have occupied the child's attention & sensory needs that could have fit even in an AE seat pocket or a mom's purse, while other things were stored overhead.

As previously posted, there's no indication that airline personnel were advised pre-flight of the special needs of this passenger and the approach to be taken in working with him.

The mother herself told me everything I needed to know this morning on GMA.

On an earlier flight, a FA for whatever dumb reason let her son walk up and down the aisle while the plane was moving before takeoff and not have his seat belt on at all times, particularly during take off and landing. She expected that to occur again and doesn't see why that would be a problem. The FA in question didn't let her son do that and I applaud her actions.

If the mother is too stupid or too self absorbed to see that walking down the aisle while a plane is moving toward takeoff is a problem (special needs or not) then I doubt she would do all the rehearsing and thinking things out that one poster sensibly suggested.

I work full time w/ children on the Autism spectrum. In today's "people first" educational correctness, we don't say "autistic child", we say, "child with autism", putting who he is before what he goes through.


Educational correctness/political correctness hogwash. I am sick of people telling us what we should say and how we should say it. "Autistic child" has been around a lot longer than "child with autism". I am for brevity and clarity. "Child with autism" puts "who he is" ahead of "what he goes through" only because someone has chosen to define it that way, and probably so that he could add a published paper to his resume.

I agree that not all people are able to fly. I also agree that saying a child with blindness is stupid. The blind child is here is just fine.

I suspect that AA corporate had something else in mind when they said "this should never have happened.":mad:

I sympathize with the challenges that the parents face in raising this child, but to try to blame the airline for enforcing safety regulations is over the top.

The only criticism I would make is this: if the captain really said that there was an "uncontrollable child" on board (and I take the mom's statement with a grain of salt), then that was wrong. It would have been better to say that they were returning to the terminal because there was a passenger with a problem (or something similar).

The mother herself told me everything I needed to know this morning on GMA.

On an earlier flight, a FA for whatever dumb reason let her son walk up and down the aisle while the plane was moving before takeoff and not have his seat belt on at all times, particularly during take off and landing. She expected that to occur again and doesn't see why that would be a problem. The FA in question didn't let her son do that and I applaud her actions.

If the mother is too stupid or too self absorbed to see that walking down the aisle while a plane is moving toward takeoff is a problem (special needs or not) then I doubt she would do all the rehearsing and thinking things out that one poster sensibly suggested.

QFT. And if she wanted to keep her bag with her, why did she choose a bulkhead seat?

I agree with the airline. It also sounds like the way this mother handles her autistic child is to let him do whatever he wants.

This also doesn't sound very politically correct Any parent with a child like that I don't mean to nitpick.... just saying if we're going to have a nanny state where PC is enforced, then everything we say is fair game for others to comment on......

Sounds like another oh-so-common parent with the attitude that the world must cowtow to her simply because she bore a child. She is exactly the type of person who would sue the airline if/when her child was injured while not secured properly. She should be banned from all airlines, nay, all public places, until she can demonstrate awareness that she is not the center of the universe.

Harsh? Maybe. But I am so sick of these people who believe that freedom means the freedom to encroach on other's freedoms and safety.

:td::td:

Sounds like another oh-so-common parent with the attitude that the world must cowtow to her simply because she bore a child. She is exactly the type of person who would sue the airline if/when her child was injured while not secured properly. She should be banned from all airlines, nay, all public places, until she can demonstrate awareness that she is not the center of the universe.

Harsh? Maybe. But I am so sick of these people who believe that freedom means the freedom to encroach on other's freedoms and safety.

:td::td:

Here, here!! ^

Educational correctness/political correctness hogwash. I am sick of people telling us what we should say and how we should say it. "Autistic child" has been around a lot longer than "child with autism". I am for brevity and clarity. "Child with autism" puts "who he is" ahead of "what he goes through" only because someone has chosen to define it that way, and probably so that he could add a published paper to his resume.

I am for allowing people to decide what they wish to be called; or if they are unable to speak for themselves, then their parents. The "n" word has been around longer than "African-American" but that doesn't mean it's appropriate to go around calling people that.

Before I don my flameproof underwear, please note that I am a practicing neuropyschiatrist and I treat many patients with various types of autism. The diagnosis and treatment of these cases can be extraordinarily complex, as autism is a common co-morbidity of other mental diseases.

I do not believe that telling the airline about the kid's diagnosis would have made any bit of difference. Clearly, we are talking about FAA flight safety regulations which exist for all passengers including those with special needs. I defer to our airline colleagues on this one.

The mother's idea that she should be given more time to calm the child down is not only unreasonable, but outrageous given that the airline is trying to keep its schedule as best it can against a backdrop of delays of every type. That she was allowed to violate certain FAA regulations the first time is hardly an excuse, and indeed it makes me question why the airline was not reported for failure to follow the law. I do not care if her child was allowed to move during the first flight--it was against the law and quite frankly I think the mother knew that. I seriously have to question any mother who would allow her child to roll around on a filthy aircraft floor or demand to break more regulations because of its special needs. Once you create a precedent, you can't take it back.

The airline acted properly by removing the unruly child and the unreasonable mother. As a physician, I do not buy into this idea that every action by a parent is somehow sacrosanct. Parents have to obey the law like everyone else, and if they cannot then they suffer the consequences. I have children too, but I would not allow them to disrupt a flight like that even if they had any special needs.

I suspect that AA corporate had something else in mind when they said "this should never have happened.":mad:

I sympathize with the challenges that the parents face in raising this child, but to try to blame the airline for enforcing safety regulations is over the top.

The only criticism I would make is this: if the captain really said that there was an "uncontrollable child" on board (and I take the mom's statement with a grain of salt), then that was wrong. It would have been better to say that they were returning to the terminal because there was a passenger with a problem (or something similar).

I take what the mother said with a bushel of salt. We don't know exactly what the pilot said. But it was an AE flight. I fly a third to half of my flights on AE. There's pretty much no way the entire plane wouldn't have known what was going on because of how small they are, particularly if the child was being as disruptive as described by his own mother. The pilot was only stating the obvious to the passengesr and I applaud his candor rather than trying to sugar coat the obvious truth. To say a problem with a passenger....well the passengers would know the problem.

As far as AA corporate saying it should have never happened, again, I don't think AA ever said that to the news media, that's what the mother is claiming was told to her.

Well said.

While the FA probably could have been more pleasant about it, she was charged with enforcing FAA regulations. Because the child and mother were unable to comply with those regulations, the captain made the right decision to remove both from the flight.

Given the child's disability, it seems clear it was not his fault that he couldn't comply with FAA regulations. But that point is irrelevant in the broader context of his own safety and that of all the other people on board. The captain had to think about EVERYONE'S safety, including that of the child. He decided, correctly in my view, to remove the child because his mother did not assist him in complying with FAA regulations.

one telling quote is "rolling around on the floor"; this is AFTER the seatbelt has been checked and tightened several times by the FA. IMO, AA did the right thing.

That's exactly what I thought. I don't see why the mother is complaining - if the kid could not calm down, did she expect the pilot to take off with the kid rolling around the floor? A major safety issue.

The crew did the right thing and the mother needs to realize that if her child is uncomfortable, she needs to do what's right for him. If she was so concerned for her child and he did not want to fly, she should have asked to deplane.

And of course, the comfort of the other passengers on that flight. The crew had a call to make - please 2 people vs 100+.

Educational correctness/political correctness hogwash. I am sick of people telling us what we should say and how we should say it. "Autistic child" has been around a lot longer than "child with autism". I am for brevity and clarity. "Child with autism" puts "who he is" ahead of "what he goes through" only because someone has chosen to define it that way, and probably so that he could add a published paper to his resume.

At least someone said it - child with autism, autistic child, it's still the same thing. I guess we'll have to change handicapped man to man with a handicap. People need to relax and stop trying to sugarcoat it.

I am for allowing people to decide what they wish to be called; or if they are unable to speak for themselves, then their parents. The "n" word has been around longer than "African-American" but that doesn't mean it's appropriate to go around calling people that.

That does not EVEN begin to make sense. What does the n-word (as you like to put it) have to do with this. In case you've missed something, that derogatory word has been used to incite hate, to separate, and the demonize. When has the word 'autistic' been used to insult or terrorize any group of people?

If the topic was on retardation, then it's a totally different matter because a derivative is not a polite way of describing the condition.

Let's get our facts correct!

the unruly child


I think you meant to say "child with unruliness."

I work full time w/ children on the Autism spectrum. In today's "people first" educational correctness, we don't say "autistic child", we say, "child with autism", putting who he is before what he goes through.


I am for allowing people to decide what they wish to be called; or if they are unable to speak for themselves, then their parents. The "n" word has been around longer than "African-American" but that doesn't mean it's appropriate to go around calling people that.

Actually, there ARE plenty of people with autism who do themselves use the phrase "autistic people" and refer to themselves as autistic, not as people with autism. So one can be both PC (EC?) and allow people to decide what they wish to be called, AND use the phrase "autistic child."

See http://web.syr.edu/~jisincla/person_first.htm to hear first-hand why that is for some people.

I am for allowing people to decide what they wish to be called; or if they are unable to speak for themselves, then their parents. The "n" word has been around longer than "African-American" but that doesn't mean it's appropriate to go around calling people that.

So if I decide I wish to be called "your all-knowing and exalted highness," that's what everybody is going to call me? Sorry, but a bit of common sense has to prevail.

If "autistic child" was a term that was intended to impart malice, you might have reason to equate it with "the n word." In fact, it is simply a descriptive term -- with no more or less malicious intent than "child with autism." As such, any speaker has every right to use it, regardless of whether the person wants to be called that. Very different from "the n word."

I'm prepared for the hate here, but i call BS on the mom for numerous reasons - one that she was totally in the wrong for expecting the whole world to accommodate her.
Two because I'm not sure that this kid is on the spectrum to begin with. As the mother of an aspie, and the aunt of an autistic child, i have to say that this kid is not acting like i would expect a child with ASD of any kind to. He is laughing multiple times, he is clearly not bothered by the camera being less than a foot from his face, and seems to be trying to interact with the cameraman while playing. This kid is more likely got some kind of behavioral disorder.I makes me mad when i see parents put this label on their kid as an excuse for their bad behavior.
JMO

I am for allowing people to decide what they wish to be called; or if they are unable to speak for themselves, then their parents. The "n" word has been around longer than "African-American" but that doesn't mean it's appropriate to go around calling people that.
I DON'T believe in allowing people to adorn themselves with fancy labels. The term "black" is the exact opposite of "white." Neither are entirely accurate since white people tend to be light peach colored while black people tend to be brown. But the words make sense and neither is insulting.

When we allow black people to insist on calling themselves "African-American," we are left with no term for people who have recently moved to this country from Africa. Barak Obama is an African American. Most blacks in this country are not.

Why would this woman go to the media after what happened when the Kulesza family tried the exact same stunt with AirTran a year and a half ago? Apparently she assumes that there will be some tremendous outpouring of public sympathy, as the Kuleszas did before they were quickly and rightly disabused of that notion.

Saw her on GMA this morning. She said "if they'd have just given me more time I could have calmed him down."

Good lord. Kulesza redux.

I would also not suggest the bit about singing with a child since this will get the child off the aircraft toooo. Remebr the 2 year old this year sitting in the window seat looking out and repeating plane, plane....... It got him thorwn off too.

Silly, silly woman.
The only sensible thing she said was that she's going to get the train.
Yes the FA should NOT have been pulling at the belt-ASD kids (and adults) often have a far lower tolerence for physical proximity of others especially strangers and it causes genuine distress to the child and probably was what tipped the child over into full blown meltdown -and I'd question the wisdom of an FA making physical contact with any child unless completely avoidable.......
However the mother seems to have resigned any personal responsibility and that is appaulling. I chose NOT to fly with my son when he was small because I felt the close proximity and restrictions that air travel requires was too much for him and would cause distress to him. It is her job to protect him and she failed dismally.
Yes I have a child with ASD No I don't make life hell for him, me and everyone else around with my choices-I think before putting my son into situations that are likely to cause him distress.
I feel for the child but the mother needs to either be properly educated in her son's condition-or grow some common sense and compassion towards him.

At least someone said it - child with autism, autistic child, it's still the same thing. I guess we'll have to change handicapped man to man with a handicap. People need to relax and stop trying to sugarcoat it.

Sorry to rain on your parade, but intelligent people don't say "handicapped man." The correct phrase is "person with a disability."

Sorry to rain on your parade, but intelligent people don't say "handicapped man." The correct phrase is "person with a disability."

where you find that? perhaps there is a Roget of proper frazes, or do we just switch each condition around i.e.

XXXXXX person to person of XXXXX?

and in

i am no longer a white/caucasian man, but a man of white color or of caucasian extraction? a decendent of eastern european extraction with attitude? every sentence must contain an

to quote the great Captain of the starship Enterprise(not Captain Kirk) "get a life"

new rule for high IQ: every sentence must contain an "of"

guess i am just a person of low intelligence.

My friend has a genetic disorder, has outlived his life expectancy and is in a wheelchair. He calls himself a "cripple."

In fact, I found a t-shirt that says "CRIPPLE" and has the handicapped man from the parking sign with a bong in his hand and I'm purchasing one for my friend because I know he will love it.

Sorry to rain on your parade, but intelligent people don't say "handicapped man." The correct phrase is "person with a disability."


Sorry to rain on your parade, but "disability" is so 1990s. The people who changed "handicapped" to "disability" changed "disability" to "differently- abled". You need to keep up with your PC phrases as "disability" is no longer politically correct because the prefix "dis" is negative.

Sorry to rain on your parade, but intelligent people don't say "handicapped man." The correct phrase is "person with a disability."

Sorry, but implying that someone isn't intelligent just because they don't agree with your PC terminology is one of the most ignorant things I've read here in a while. Intelligent people are those who don't just blindly accept what others (such as the PC police) tell them, but who actually think for themselves.

the world is too PC allready, i dont bother joining in when I am with my group of friends, when I am talking to the public or other persons then I try not to get too PC as some people take offence, others take it in their stride, Like saying if i see a handicapped person then I say they are handicapped, they could be called a cripple, could be called anything but it all depends on teh person I think

When we transport autistic children on a school bus, they must be seated. On the special ed bus they have seat belts and they must be used. This is for their safety. So why should anyone on a plane not be in a seat belt? This all makes no sense. The pilot made the right call.

Moderator Hat On

It seems this thread may have veered off track here and there. I'm closing the thread temporarily to review.

Edited to Add: Sorry for the delay. After review and some modification, this thread is being reopened. However, the responses so far are bringing the discussion very close to being closed or moved to OMNI. Let's try to discuss this in a polite and courteous fashion.

Much appreciated!

Moderator Hat Off