Flight Diverted over Unruly Passenger

Post Reply New Topic

Sticks-n-stones.

Someone puts something on twitter about a lady punching a flight attendant but nothing on any news site about an arrest for assault or anything else certain. No one seems to have gotten this incident on video, either. Amazing since everyone carries a video campear on their person.

Even if there was an assault thats no reason to scramble F-16's or make an emergency landing. That whole thing had to have been very expensive.[/quote]
it is when the lady in question claimed to want to bring the plane down because they confiscated her cat.



The mafia thing is obviously BS.

This:
"The FBI says the woman is not facing charges."

Make a ruckus with threats like that on any airliner, punch a flight crew member, and cause (even if unwarranted) an F-16 escorted emergency landing and you're going to jail for something, probably on multiple charges.
It just doesn't work any other way.

there's a reason the term "crazy cat lady" exists, so it's plausible. though you're right that there's no evidence of it aside from anecdotes. Also the fact that it's BS doesn't mean she didn't say it. Emotion can easily overwhelm reasonable thought.

Still doesn't justify the fighter escort and emergency landing.

There is the possibility, too, that the relevant officer in command chose to scramble the jets because the diversion presented an opportunity to put pilots and crews through a real exercise. Even if the diversion didn't warrant a fighter escort, there is nothing wrong with putting your people through their paces.

Yes, but they could have done that drill using a military aircraft (like a tanker or cargo plane) to practice on. That way it would escape public scrutiny.

- Says the boy who lied about the German pirates.

OK as the OP, here are some random thoughts generated from the responses in this thread:

There could be some training value for fighter jets to respond, but really that is an expensive exercise.

Maybe like sometimes people getting lost or injured for their own stupidness are having to pay for the search and rescue costs, maybe unruly passengers should have to pay for these responses?

I can see there being a protocol to responding to "out of control" flight issues, suspected terrorist takeovers, but would hope Airplane captains would have different "buttons" for customer unruly versus possible hijacker?

So even if it is a terrorist hijacker, the fighter jet looking menacing outside the hijacked plane is "saying" to the bad guys, (other than in movies, I don't think the fighter pilots can actually talk to the hijackers) stop doing that or else we will kill you and everyone aboard?

So its a better option to kill 4-500 people in the plane as opposed to letting it fly into a targeted building? There is some logic there. But still the terrorists have succeeded in creating terror.

That's assuming they are even allowed such latitude to make and act on those distinctions. This is the age of effectively not thinking yet still calling it critical thinking.


I would say so but in reality whoever (or thier agency) made the decision to put an AIM-120 into an airliner full of civilian passengers stands a chance to be crucified when they start showing pictures of the faces of the deceased and the peaceniks start bawling about how there could have been a better way (without offering one, of course) of handling the situation. Or insisting that they can't prove the terrorists actually inrtended to kamikaze the airliner into a building.

Of course, if the decision is made not to shoot down the airliner that person (or thier agency) that made the decision will be crucified for not exercising damage control by shooting down the airliner.
It's a hell of a dilemma to be saddled with.

It doesn't in hindsight, but I think that it would be vastly more unacceptable to have an actual threat let by without intervention than a perceived threat be met with overwhelming force.

Crazy cat ladies can't help it,blame the parasite.lol

It would take very little to provide overwhelming force when dealing with one (1) crazy cat lady. Using a Mk-84 bomb to take out an ant isn't overwhelming force or even showmanship, it's just stupidity.

BTW, why do you continue to respond to someone you are convinced is a troll? Don't you know the staff of life for trolls is attention? By your own accusations YOU are a TROLL ENABLER!

If there are five crazy cat ladies,and they have released cats on the aircraft,then that's different.Just image the havoc unleashed,THAT'S when you need an escort. If she had just one cat she was traveling light,most have a minimum of three.Don't forget the threat of kittens.