F9 fined for not complying with federal regulations protecting air travelers with disabilities.

http://www.dot.gov/affairs/2012/dot4112.html

Ouch. $50K could go a long way toward providing the training about how to deal with situations like this. 17 other sanctions on that docket.

Interesting that the flight where they were following the law is probably what caused him to file the complaint. The 3 prior flights where they didn't follow the law (and thus left him in danger of injury?), he didn't have a problem with. And from the DOT's press release, it sounds like Frontier was supposed to do something more once they were told he required a wheelchair. I've never had any airline ask something more when I tell them my mom needs a wheelchair. Are they even allowed to ask anything more than "what type of assistance do you need?"

What is the normal method of restraint for someone like this? What responsibility does the flyer have to know what is required? How are the FAs, etc supposed to know everything that is required?

Are these the answers(bolding is mine)?
http://fsims.faa.gov/WDocs/Bulletins.../FSAT0501.htm:
"D. Crewmembers are not required to know how to operate the internal restraints on the OPD. This is the responsibility of the person who is using the OPD or his/her caregiver. Crewmembers are only responsible for ensuring that the aircraft seat belt, the primary method of restraint, is used properly."

"G. The guidance contained in this FSAT is specific to one type of OPD that a person with a disability uses to allow the aircraft seat belt to be the primary method of restraint. It does not mean that any type of restraint used by people with disabilities is exempt from the regulations regarding the use of restraint systems and it does not preclude the air carriers responsibility from making a safety judgment based on specific compliance with applicable regulations. "

From http://www.denverpost.com/news/ci_18319334, "On Monday, neither the Federal Aviation Administration nor Frontier could say what constitutes proper restraint for a passenger with a spinal-cord injury." Hopefully they know the answer by now.

I find the comments about how the pilot should be fired amazing. Seems like he was the one following the law (relying on the DOT release "Federal Aviation Administration requirements prohibit seatbelt extenders as restraint devices for his upper body").

How would you handle a situation like this where others let him fly against the law and did not notify him like they were supposed to if you were the pilot? I think coming out and eyeballing the situation would have been a good personal touch, even if you know you have to kick him off the plane or have someone get an approved restraint(which from FSAT 0501 seems to differ by passenger).

The passenger is from my town. I wonder if I've seen him around...

Thanks for letting us know about this.

BTW, this is the incident referred to in http://www.flyertalk.com/forum/pract...passenger.html

Read the Consent Order:

http://www.regulations.gov/#!documen...2012-0002-0016

Frontier was fined for three things, none of which were the result of the pilot's ultimate decision to remove him from the flight:

Here is the DOT's analysis of that:

It seems that made the denial this time worse in the DOT's eyes-- sort of a doctrine of reliance. This finding actually makes a lot of sense Here's a guy who is disabled and has traveled without issue on this carrier restraining himself one way. He shows up one day and gets kicked off the plane because it turns out that might not be acceptable after all. It seems fair to hold the airline responsible for creating such a situation as a result of their inconsistency.

Here are the DOT's findings on that issue:

So they were on notice as to all his needs from the get-go.

Perhaps this pilot followed the law, but it is the air carrier's failures before and after the pilot's decision, not the pilot's decision itself, that drove the fine:

$50k is a large fine for what seems like relatively minor violations, but the deterrence value cannot be underestimated.

RyanAir is lucky to operate in a jurisdiction the where they probably only get fined for half the things they would get fined for if they operated in the USA.

To the credit of the police, they told the pilot to solve his own problem-- that this was not a law enforcement issue-- and left, as I recall.

But they did say they would come back if the passenger got unruly and started kicking or punching other passengers!

Ari, thank you for your well written, thoughtful response.

You are quite correct that I should have read the consent order for more information. My computer had issues opening it, but today I was more persistent.

None of what they were fined for was the result of the pilot's decision to remove him from the flight, but the complaint and thus the fines were probably the result of the decision to remove him from the flight. If someone had figured out a way to allow him to fly on that flight and still comply with the FAA's rules, I don't know that there would have been a complaint and investigation(though hopefully Frontier would have taken steps to fix their deficiencies).

Though reading the consent order, I might have complained anyway if I were him or his family. The 3rd party service vender that never showed(I wonder what Frontier has done about this), the delay in boarding and the defective aisle chairs all seem to indicate something needs to be fixed by Frontier.


Yes and no. I like consistency in enforcement of policies, so it would be nice if they were consistent. But I don't know that the prior flights created enough of pattern(and Frontier disputes the use of the seat belt extenders for support in 2009 - though "do not recall" sounds weak). From the first flight 2 years before, rules have probably changed. Though maybe they change less often for disabilities than they do for TSA...

Also, I think the doctrine of reliance works by modifying implicit or explicit contracts. If by that reliance the modified contract would not comply with FAA rules, can you rely on it? Yes, it looks like the DOT believes so and that the 2009 flights contributed.

Yes.

I think the pilot was correct in deciding what was "right" for that flight (though there probably was a better way to handle it) and that the other issues are something Frontier's management needs to deal with by maintenance of equipment, training of employees and having a contract with large penalties for the 3rd party wheelchair company(and get them to pay the part of the fine due to not preboarding.

I wonder if the flight attendants and pilots that allowed him to use the seat belt extenders previously have received special training now. Though it sounds like Frontier disputes the use of seat belt extenders for support in 2009.


I did notice that it's only if you need the wheelchair for boarding that 14 CFR 382.41(c) kicks in to inform you of their limitations. My mom only uses it to get through the airport, so they haven't needed to add anything special there.
Yes. Seeing all the other issues, it seems like Frontier needed a wake-up call that they need to address their issues.


From what I've heard, yes. Or they are smart enough to know it...

*laugh*

The question stands though of:
How would you handle a situation like this where others let him fly against the law and did not notify him like they were supposed to if you were the pilot?

If it was legal to let him fly with the seat belt extenders, then letting him fly, but providing him with notice (backed up with a letter by certified mail) letting him and his family know that he needs to bring restraints in the future would probably work.

If it's not legal to let him fly, then what would you do?

Directly from the Frontier website:

The "special needs on the plane" page addresses portable oxygen devices and peanut allergies, but not the issues relating to the fine. Perhaps it's time for some additions to this page.

The difference between a quadriplegic whose upper body is limp due to his paralysis and thus is prone to tipping over, and a a unparalyzed person whose upper body is limp due to being asleep is?

I know when I am asleep, I bend the head rests so that my head is less likely to fall onto the shoulder of my neighbor.

Clearly, every airline should ban pax from sleeping on planes.

If pax safety depends on a pax staying fulling upright in his seat, then all planes without dual shoulder harnesses are unsafe. It is interesting the FAs in jumpseats get dual shoulder harnesses and pax don't. This reminds me of the excuses school districts and bus makers use for not equipping school buses with seat belts.

So clearly the pilot should never let any pax, except infants strapped to car seats fly.

The pilot was a 'hole, and the FAA fined the airline. Pity the fine can't be taken out of his paycheck.

I think that is a silly comparison.

A person that is limp due to sleeping can wake up and use hands/arms/legs/feet to brace or reposition self. A quadriplegic can't. Someone else has to help them while also bracing themself. Yes, the sleeping passenger may be hurt before waking enough to brace themself(though their body may instinctively brace - I have before), but they are less likely to be injured due to their muscle tone.

Passengers and flight attendants were just injured due to severe turbulance on a flight coming into DEN. DEN is great for turbulance.

A dual shoulder harness or other additional restraints may help, but I don't see passengers going for it. FAs already have to check that lap belts are fastened. Imagine how long it would take if they had to check on dual shoulder harnesses.

I do agree that not having seat belts on school buses seems strange.

The pilot may be an "'hole". I don't know who it was. But since he was following FAA rules, if you have a problem with the rules, you should blame the FAA, not the pilot. The DOT fined Frontier for actions independent of the pilot's decision. Don't you think that if they felt he was in the wrong, they would have a fine for that also?

In fairness, it is pretty difficult to find unless you have a link to it.

I agree and I doubt that a complaint would have been filed had he been allowed to fly on his originally-booked flight, notwithstanding the boarding/preboarding failures.

It doesn't modify rules or laws, but by allowing Mr. M to fly those times, Frontier failed to notify him (as a technical matter) of what is actually required of him.

You ask good questions, and I think the reason Frontier was fined for everything but the refusal to carry is a result of no one knowing how to answer that question properly. The DOT didn't like the way this looked, so they went for the low-hanging fruit-- the preboarding and the broken wheelchairs-- rather than addressing the elephant in the room-- the initial refusal to carry-- which seems like it might have been justified under FAA rules.

This is a comedy of errors of sort: Had they carried Mr. M on the flight, I doubt he would have filed a complaint notwithstanding the preboarding failure and the defective aisle chair; had Frontier not screwed up the boarding/deboarding/preboarding of Mr. M, they likely would not have been fined since they were not fined for the initial refusal to carry and that would be the only remaining basis for the complaint had they done everything else out.

I guess the here lesson is beware the quadriplegic scorned!

Or any other "protected class" that can get the government to come after you. I've heard in trainings in another industry that you have to be very careful with any of them and make sure you show that you are considering their situation even if you expect to deny the accommodation.

Though, in this case with all those failures, it looks like Frontier needed a wake-up call.


Hometown newspaper coverage of the story:
http://www.coloradoan.com/apps/pbcs....=2012204190326

He mentions a "gait belt", but apparently wasn't wearing it even though one of their primary uses is to help attendants move disabled folks. And it isn't mentioned in the consent order either.