American Airline and military officials reported that two Royal Air Force fighter jets were dispatched for a flight bound for Heathrow International Airport Tuesday. This action was provoked by a female passenger who was trying break into the cockpit.
AA Flight #78 that departed from Dallas/Fort Worth on Monday landed safely at approximately 11 a.m. (1100 GMT). The woman, who has yet to be identified, was taken into custody.
American Airlines personnel said the passenger “became distressed during the flight and reportedly attempted to gain access to the flight deck. “She was calmed by flight attendants but, as a precaution, a priority approach to London was requested and police were asked to meet the aircraft.”
The Ministry of Defense said the Typhoon fighters were scrambled from the RAF Coningsby base in central England on Tuesday morning. They returned to the base after the incident was determined not to be terrorism-related.
On January 6th, 2010, two F-15 fighter jets escorted a Hawaiian Airlines flight bound for Hawaii back to Portland International Airport after a passenger became disruptive and refused to cooperate with the crew.
Many passengers have witnessed others becoming unruly when they’ve had too much to drink. Could this be another signal that people should be limited in how much liquor they’re served during flights?
There have been other such incidents. Even though no one would ever want people’s lives to be at danger, is our society seeing terrorists everywhere to the point that such extraordinary and costly means are going to become the norm in commercial aviation? No one is suggesting flight crews take any chances. But is there something called going overboard? What do you think?
Karen Fawcett is president of Bonjour Paris
Karen Fawcett loves to travel anywhere. Karen was a founder & president BonjourParis.com while living in Paris for more than 25 years. She has traveled across Europe and the rest of the world. She is now based in Washington, DC.
Overboard?
Isnt it wise to prepare for a worst case scenario, rather than face a situation inadequately prepared or incapable of dealing with the presented threat.
From many years in the airline industry…I believe that we cannot be too cautious while in the air. Alcohol is not always the cause, either.
Is it better to wait for what happened in 2001 – or what almost happened while a passenger was trying to light his shoes?
And what are you proposing to do when there is an unruly passenger, shoot the flight down? There is a difference between a distraught or unruly passenger and an attempt to bring down a plane. To be meaningful, the response has to be appropriate. In the case of a shoe bomber or underwear bomber wouldn’t sending up fighters to shoot down the plane accomplish the job that the bomber set out to do? And if you aren’t going to shoot the plane down, why send up the fighters? Fighters are no more of a magic bullet than someone who waves a gun around and isn’t prepared to use it.
If we take the “we cannot be too cautious” approach, then no one should be allowed on the plane with anything on and without undergoing a thorough inspection and all luggage would be transported on another plane. There would be no access to the cockpit from cargo/passenger compartment.
We cannot continue to live in constant fear of an attack. Yes, we can exercise reasonable precautions to prevent attacks and passengers should remain vigilant during the flight and be ready to take action if necessary.
An unruly passenger who refuses to leave the restroom is one thing and scrambling jets might be an over-reaction. Another passenger attempting to access the flight deck is something else entirely. Why aren’t there cameras pointing back at the camera from the flight deck door area?
Soooooo, let’s place the “UNDERWEAR BOMBER” in front of the cockpit door. He’s unruly until………………………….he LIGHTS A MATCH and blows up the cockpit. RIGHT?
The reason to procedure to scramble the fighters at the first sign of trouble onboad is in place is the same reason that sky marshals don’t break their cover and assist in subduing unruly passengers. These unruly people could be a diversion created by terrorists. As soon as the crew’s attention is on the disturbance, that could create the opening the true terrorist needs to do something much more sinister.
As others have said, there is an ENORMOUS difference between an unruly passenger and an unruly passenger that is trying to rush the cockpit. Think 9/11/2001..
I’ll leave it at that. I, too, dislike the generic security but am willing to put up with things to help safety….
I thought that after 9/11 the cockpit doors were securely locked and strengthened so that only someone already inside the cockpit could give access to it. What are the chances that such a secured door could be breached by one unruly woman? Was she armed? Was she threatening to kill someone if not admitted to the cockpit? How many people does it take to subdue one unruly woman unless she has extensive training in martial arts?
I want to be on John’s flight, where the fighter pilots stay on the ground. I understand that the psychological cost of constant fear is an inability to act in the face of a real threat. Maybe that’s why they bring out the BIG guns for small issues.
Fear of being sued if one just smacks down an unruly passenger is probably a consideration……I’d like to know more about the unruly passenger. Drunk? Mentally ill? Claustrophobic? Did she think her husband was in the cockpit with a woman on his lap? Our mental health system has broken down and Texas especially has little to no support system for those in need of any sort…..
It’s a complicated issue. But I’m still hoping to be on John’s flight…..
@Alan assuming your theory is correct, the question still is what fighters are going to do about ti? If they shoot the plane down the tertrorist in your scenario has accomplished what he set out to do. If they don’t, he may or may not, depending on the nature of his threat and the actions of the crew.
First of all, I am not the same Alan as the other one posting here but I agree with his statement about the possibility of an unruly passenger being a possible diversion.
With that said, I think that most of the ‘drunk’ passengers are not getting drunk ON the plane, they are boozing it up at the bars in the airports first, and THEN ordering even MORE when they get onboard! I know from working with the airlines in the past that almost every day there’s a person that is too drunk to fly (and no, not the pilot) that is PREVENTED from boarding, but way too many others are allowed onboard because they weren’t RECOGNIZED as being too drunk until after the plane has taken off. These are the ones that get unruly, often because the flight attendants won’t give them MORE booze because they can tell they are drunk!!
Too bad we can’t move the security screening area AFTER the bars, stores, food courts and such… Then security could possibly weed them out before going TO the gate and then the GATE people would be the second level to look for them…
In any case, they should put up HUGE SIGNS in the bars and other parts of the airport that say “DRUNKS CAN’T FLY AND WON’T GET A REFUND EITHER!!”
I also think we should adopt the practice the Israeli’s use for their planes: NO access to the cockpit from the passenger area! That’s right, the cockpit crew have their own separate entrance and the bulkhead between the cockpit and passenger area is armored to protect against bullets and small explosives. No worries about a terrorist getting into the cockpit unless he’s part of the crew.