Flight attendant causes disturbance and is removed aboard AA 2332 9 Mar 2012
Mar 10, 2012, 6:54 am
#77
Join Date: May 2009
Location: dfw
Programs: exp 4.3mm miles
Posts: 124
At first blush seems she went off the deep end. Thankfully, this got resolved On The Ground! It will be interesting to find out what caused this behavior. I say get her fully evaluated and only let her back as an FA if it is determined that whatever caused this will very very likely not happen again. Overall it seems a larger and larger percentage of flight attendants can't wait to rush through the service and get back to their books and magazine reading. This particular flight attendant will have plenty of time for that activity!
Mar 10, 2012, 6:59 am
#78
Suspended
Join Date: Nov 2007
Posts: 6,189
Edited content rendered worthless after relevant redacted previously deleted post content was deleted.
Last edited by IcHot; Mar 10, 2012 at 1:13 pm Reason: redacted previously deleted post content
Mar 10, 2012, 8:19 am
#79
FlyerTalk Evangelist
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: west of DFW airport
Programs: AA LT Gold 1.9 MM flying my way to LT PLAT
Posts: 11,074
Due to privacy rules, AA may not at all have been aware of this woman's mental health issues.
This is all over the news in the DFW area.
Several passengers have reported hearing this FA say that she 'forgot' to take her meds.
We haven't heard the last of this.
This is all over the news in the DFW area.
Several passengers have reported hearing this FA say that she 'forgot' to take her meds.
We haven't heard the last of this.
Mar 10, 2012, 8:34 am
#80
Moderator: American AAdvantage
Join Date: May 2000
Location: NorCal - SMF area
Programs: AA LT Plat; HH LT Diamond, Maître-plongeur des Muccis
Posts: 62,948
"Shoot first?" Excuse me? 
I am sorry, but I have personally observed similar incidents - including one where an AA passenger was removed for very similar behavior, screaming about the airplane crashing, etc. The individual ultimately received mental health treatment. Nobody was shot, and the restraint of the passenger by crew and later law enforcement was actually gentler than what was depicted in this recent incident.
I have also worked with law enforcement for over thirty years - including at one point the FBI. The FBI certainly do not take cues from a pilot; they investigate (hey, it's even in their name
) and sometimes take on investigations when local law enforcement chooses not to proceed fir various reasons. They most likely decided this was a mental health issue and not a credible thread to airline safety, which was intervened in successfully and the subject dealt with appropriately. (As was the incident I witnessed.)
I prefer to credit the crew, passengers, law enforcement and the airline with appropriate restraint and action.
I am sorry, but I have personally observed similar incidents - including one where an AA passenger was removed for very similar behavior, screaming about the airplane crashing, etc. The individual ultimately received mental health treatment. Nobody was shot, and the restraint of the passenger by crew and later law enforcement was actually gentler than what was depicted in this recent incident.
I have also worked with law enforcement for over thirty years - including at one point the FBI. The FBI certainly do not take cues from a pilot; they investigate (hey, it's even in their name
) and sometimes take on investigations when local law enforcement chooses not to proceed fir various reasons. They most likely decided this was a mental health issue and not a credible thread to airline safety, which was intervened in successfully and the subject dealt with appropriately. (As was the incident I witnessed.)I prefer to credit the crew, passengers, law enforcement and the airline with appropriate restraint and action.
Bingo.
When it is a civilian, it is shoot first, ask questions later.... federal charges, they will SLAM you- airline, pilots, etc, will all sing the same tune and that will be to ASSUME you were endangering the flight, etc, etc. You would need to post bail, hire attorneys, deal with court, experts, etc- and get the charges dropped (hopefully).
My feeling is that as one of them, she was treated very differently that a civilian suffering a breakdown in flight. Your comment that FBI was contacted and have 'chosen' not to lay charges is a bit disingenuous- THEY are driven by what the captain and others say. She got special treatment, IMO.
Anyway, this was surely unusual but not really a security risk...right? Not like the guy was an Egypt Air pilot, waiting for the captain hit the loo before he ditched.
When it is a civilian, it is shoot first, ask questions later.... federal charges, they will SLAM you- airline, pilots, etc, will all sing the same tune and that will be to ASSUME you were endangering the flight, etc, etc. You would need to post bail, hire attorneys, deal with court, experts, etc- and get the charges dropped (hopefully).
My feeling is that as one of them, she was treated very differently that a civilian suffering a breakdown in flight. Your comment that FBI was contacted and have 'chosen' not to lay charges is a bit disingenuous- THEY are driven by what the captain and others say. She got special treatment, IMO.
Anyway, this was surely unusual but not really a security risk...right? Not like the guy was an Egypt Air pilot, waiting for the captain hit the loo before he ditched.
Mar 10, 2012, 8:39 am
#81
Moderator: American AAdvantage
Join Date: May 2000
Location: NorCal - SMF area
Programs: AA LT Plat; HH LT Diamond, Maître-plongeur des Muccis
Posts: 62,948
I believe you are exactly right. It was appalling to me all the phones waving, a man shouting for others to "get down! we can't see!"
And it is not anything recent, we just did not have the means to record previously - I have seen this at many accidents, and even at a terror bombing I was involved with - the bomb went off, and as we were attending to the wounded and trying to pick up the pieces a crowd gathered to watch. Fortunately for the crowd (and me) a Claymore mine in an airline bag, timed to sweep the aid personnel, was detected and removed a few minutes prior to detonation.
If the FA didn't have enough to suffer for, the incident is now recorded, distributed and part of the world wide web for people to refer and even throw in her face for the remainder of her life. Sad!
And it is not anything recent, we just did not have the means to record previously - I have seen this at many accidents, and even at a terror bombing I was involved with - the bomb went off, and as we were attending to the wounded and trying to pick up the pieces a crowd gathered to watch. Fortunately for the crowd (and me) a Claymore mine in an airline bag, timed to sweep the aid personnel, was detected and removed a few minutes prior to detonation.
If the FA didn't have enough to suffer for, the incident is now recorded, distributed and part of the world wide web for people to refer and even throw in her face for the remainder of her life. Sad!
or disaster tourism. It was a personal disaster for the FA. I have seen some disaster voyeurism on a much larger scale.
http://open.salon.com/blog/booknut/2...tive_voyeurism
http://www.skyvalleychronicle.com/BR...old-out-865180
http://open.salon.com/blog/booknut/2...tive_voyeurism
http://www.skyvalleychronicle.com/BR...old-out-865180
Mar 10, 2012, 8:46 am
#82
Join Date: Mar 2010
Location: Seattle, WA, USA
Programs: AS MVP Gold 75K, Marriott Lifetime Titanium
Posts: 1,597
I was in Terminal C around 9:15am and didn't even know this was happening. The only evidence of any disruption were the two ambulances outside. There was no noticeable increase in police presence. Whatever the unfortunate circumstances, inside the terminal it appeared they handled the situation with dignity.
Mar 10, 2012, 9:22 am
#83
FlyerTalk Evangelist
Join Date: Apr 2001
Location: NYC
Posts: 27,222
I'm sure there have been a large number of criminals apprehended and convicted based on cell phone video recordings from witnesses. And probably lots of civil judgments that came out "correctly." Unfortunately there's a fine line between the good of society and personal privacy.
Mar 10, 2012, 9:40 am
#84
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Sunny Florida
Programs: SPG Platinum
Posts: 759
I think those of you that are saying AA will fire her are giving the airline little credit. I think they'll be more compassionate than that. I'm not sure she should return to the skies though. Surely they must have a long term disability program.
Mar 10, 2012, 9:51 am
#85
Join Date: Jan 2012
Location: South Central US
Programs: UA Lifetime GS, AA EXP 1 MM, Delta Diamond, Hilton Diamond, SPG Plat, Hyatt Gold, Hertz 5Star PC
Posts: 181
Medical privacy in the United States is governed by the Health Insurance Portability & Accountability Act or as well call it "HIPAA". The HIPAA regulations are very stringent, and they supersede all of the old regulations governing patient privacy. In general, HIPAA prohibits employers from considering mental health issues but there are a few exceptions: a) public transportation where a license is required to operate the vehicle (plane, train, truck, automobile)--this includes freight and cargo services); b) public health care where a licensed professional's ability to continue providing service without a risk to patient safety; and c) in other circumstances that are more fully described in the complex provisions of that law.
Under most circumstances, the flight attendant would not be considered an operator of the plane, however she is responsible for the safety of the passengers. This creates somewhat of a dilemma, because there are existing privacy regulations strengthened by mental health confidentiality AND disability laws. American may not have known about a possible mental illness in this woman, or it is possible that it did not fully develop until after she was trained and deployed. It is likely her union's contract with the airline provides stringent limitations on the ability of the airline to conduct post-hire mental assessments beyond the initial hiring requirements. I know flight attendants have to go through annual evaluations of their health with respect to their ability to perform their job, but it is quite possible that newer laws governing mental health confidentiality and disability do not permit them to act unless there is an overt reason to do so.
However this happened, the woman clearly needs treatment and I doubt she will be flying soon, or indeed ever.
Under most circumstances, the flight attendant would not be considered an operator of the plane, however she is responsible for the safety of the passengers. This creates somewhat of a dilemma, because there are existing privacy regulations strengthened by mental health confidentiality AND disability laws. American may not have known about a possible mental illness in this woman, or it is possible that it did not fully develop until after she was trained and deployed. It is likely her union's contract with the airline provides stringent limitations on the ability of the airline to conduct post-hire mental assessments beyond the initial hiring requirements. I know flight attendants have to go through annual evaluations of their health with respect to their ability to perform their job, but it is quite possible that newer laws governing mental health confidentiality and disability do not permit them to act unless there is an overt reason to do so.
However this happened, the woman clearly needs treatment and I doubt she will be flying soon, or indeed ever.
Mar 10, 2012, 10:00 am
#86
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Sunny Florida
Programs: SPG Platinum
Posts: 759
This may not be popular with some and please in no way read this as me not having compassion for this flight attendant. My heart aches for her. Things are not going well at AA right now.
I think it's time for the FAA to put some regulations in place for Flight Attendants. There are no psych tests, no routine or periodic evaluations (except for evacuation drills that show you can open the aircraft door in an emergency), no physicals, no age limit to retire, like there are for pilots. This is the second time a FA has made national news for having a break down in the past couple of years. It's going to take an incident to not be handled well by a flight attendant before the FAA steps in impliments some regulations. Why not take this sort of thing as the warning sign?
We don't need crew members flying around that are on the edge of a break down or who forget to take their medicine for a mental illness.
Sadly, this incident didn't surprise me all that much. I've work with many (usually very senior) FAs that come across as negative and very bitter. They're really good at not showing it to the passenger's, thankfully. But there are times when you work with someone and they overreact to everything. Lots of xanax and ambien abuse as well.
Having said that there are many many many great people working as flight attendants too. :-)
I think it's time for the FAA to put some regulations in place for Flight Attendants. There are no psych tests, no routine or periodic evaluations (except for evacuation drills that show you can open the aircraft door in an emergency), no physicals, no age limit to retire, like there are for pilots. This is the second time a FA has made national news for having a break down in the past couple of years. It's going to take an incident to not be handled well by a flight attendant before the FAA steps in impliments some regulations. Why not take this sort of thing as the warning sign?
We don't need crew members flying around that are on the edge of a break down or who forget to take their medicine for a mental illness.
Sadly, this incident didn't surprise me all that much. I've work with many (usually very senior) FAs that come across as negative and very bitter. They're really good at not showing it to the passenger's, thankfully. But there are times when you work with someone and they overreact to everything. Lots of xanax and ambien abuse as well.
Having said that there are many many many great people working as flight attendants too. :-)
Mar 10, 2012, 10:14 am
#87
Join Date: Jun 2011
Location: I 35 south bound, finally stopped
Programs: LT Plt, 4mm, *A GLD, burned out medical provider, executing our estate plan
Posts: 1,665
http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/97-1943.ZS.html
http://www.ada.gov/pubs/adastatute08mark.htm
"The purposes of this Act are–
(1) to carry out the ADA’s objectives of providing “a clear and comprehensive national mandate for the elimination of discrimination” and “clear, strong, consistent, enforceable standards addressing discrimination” by reinstating a broad scope of protection to be available under the ADA;
(2) to reject the requirement enunciated by the Supreme Court in Sutton v. United Air Lines, Inc., 527 U.S. 471 (1999) and its companion cases that whether an impairment substantially limits a major life activity is to be determined with reference to the ameliorative effects of mitigating measures;
(3) to reject the Supreme Court’s reasoning in Sutton v. United Air Lines, Inc., 527 U.S. 471 (1999) with regard to coverage under the third prong of the definition of disability ...."
Mar 10, 2012, 10:25 am
#88
Join Date: Oct 2006
Programs: LAN, AA, SPG
Posts: 1,965
Many posts in this thread make me feel very sad at the lack of compassion from fellow, supposed, human beings.
This lady, for whatever reason has had breakdown. As much as many of you objectify us as robots, simply there to bow and scrape after your whims, take your abuse and still smile, we are human beings too.
We have a heart, a brain and feelings.
Even though the airlines would like us to leave any non-work related problems at home, for all we know, there could have been umpteen things happening both inside and outside of work which left this lady in a very vulnerable place, which it is unfortunate to happen, but the crack appeared at work, in front of a group of people who decided, instead of helping her, to get out the cameras and phones and film it to post on the internet instead.
As for comments such as:
No one ever said that it was not. And I sincerely hope that, one day, if you are sat behind your desk, or at a customer meeting, and things for whatever reason get that little bit too much either mentally or physically and you either have a breakdown or suffer a heart attack, or whatever, that people show you some compassion, or at least call 9-1-1 instead of filming it and passing comment without knowing you, or what has happened.
Mental health problems blight peoples lives, on the most part for no fault of their own. Some people just lack any human compassion or feeling.
This thread is a very disappointing read.
This lady, for whatever reason has had breakdown. As much as many of you objectify us as robots, simply there to bow and scrape after your whims, take your abuse and still smile, we are human beings too.
We have a heart, a brain and feelings.
Even though the airlines would like us to leave any non-work related problems at home, for all we know, there could have been umpteen things happening both inside and outside of work which left this lady in a very vulnerable place, which it is unfortunate to happen, but the crack appeared at work, in front of a group of people who decided, instead of helping her, to get out the cameras and phones and film it to post on the internet instead.
As for comments such as:
No one ever said that it was not. And I sincerely hope that, one day, if you are sat behind your desk, or at a customer meeting, and things for whatever reason get that little bit too much either mentally or physically and you either have a breakdown or suffer a heart attack, or whatever, that people show you some compassion, or at least call 9-1-1 instead of filming it and passing comment without knowing you, or what has happened.
Mental health problems blight peoples lives, on the most part for no fault of their own. Some people just lack any human compassion or feeling.
This thread is a very disappointing read.
I also have to say that I did not and will not watch the videos of this sad story but the fact that people were recording is just so tasteless that it turns my stomach.
This was a human being in distress; I see nothing entertaining about it.
Mar 10, 2012, 10:28 am
#89
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Sunny Florida
Programs: SPG Platinum
Posts: 759
Same here. It was on the news so I saw a part of the video. I was appalled by the amount of people taking videos like it was entertainment.
Mar 10, 2012, 10:35 am
#90
Moderator: American AAdvantage
Join Date: May 2000
Location: NorCal - SMF area
Programs: AA LT Plat; HH LT Diamond, Maître-plongeur des Muccis
Posts: 62,948
Well, that's about two myopic sisters attempting to become pilots, not about a potentially disabling mental health condition and a demonstrated lack of fitness to fly, etc. But it would be beyond our boundaries at attempting prescience to begin applying law from the perspective of posters on FT.
Agree and I hope so about flying soon but I am not completely confident she won't be back in her job soon. The first link is Sutton v UL. I am not an attorney. I am sure the lawyers will weigh in
http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/97-1943.ZS.html
http://www.ada.gov/pubs/adastatute08mark.htm
"The purposes of this Act are–
(1) to carry out the ADA’s objectives of providing “a clear and comprehensive national mandate for the elimination of discrimination” and “clear, strong, consistent, enforceable standards addressing discrimination” by reinstating a broad scope of protection to be available under the ADA;
(2) to reject the requirement enunciated by the Supreme Court in Sutton v. United Air Lines, Inc., 527 U.S. 471 (1999) and its companion cases that whether an impairment substantially limits a major life activity is to be determined with reference to the ameliorative effects of mitigating measures;
(3) to reject the Supreme Court’s reasoning in Sutton v. United Air Lines, Inc., 527 U.S. 471 (1999) with regard to coverage under the third prong of the definition of disability ...."
http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/97-1943.ZS.html
http://www.ada.gov/pubs/adastatute08mark.htm
"The purposes of this Act are–
(1) to carry out the ADA’s objectives of providing “a clear and comprehensive national mandate for the elimination of discrimination” and “clear, strong, consistent, enforceable standards addressing discrimination” by reinstating a broad scope of protection to be available under the ADA;
(2) to reject the requirement enunciated by the Supreme Court in Sutton v. United Air Lines, Inc., 527 U.S. 471 (1999) and its companion cases that whether an impairment substantially limits a major life activity is to be determined with reference to the ameliorative effects of mitigating measures;
(3) to reject the Supreme Court’s reasoning in Sutton v. United Air Lines, Inc., 527 U.S. 471 (1999) with regard to coverage under the third prong of the definition of disability ...."