Last week, we reported on unusual events that occurred during a recent AirTran flight between Atlanta and Houston. E-mail accounts of the incident suggested a possible terrorist "dry run," with several passengers (of Middle Eastern descent) creating a disturbance--aimed at testing airline security--as the jetliner prepared for departure from Atlanta.
The narrative also produced an apparent hero, a man named Todd Petruna. When the Arab men began "to walk the cabin," Petruna and a fellow passenger confronted them, and forced the trouble-makers back into their seats. Moments later, personnel from the Transportation Security Administration arrived on the aircraft and took control of the incident.
According to e-mailed versions of events, passengers were surprised to discover that the Middle Eastern men were allowed to remain on the flight (after being questioned by security agents). Eventually, a second crew was brought on the plane to handle the flight and after a lengthy delay, Flight 297 finally took off for Houston, arriving there after midnight.
The scenario sounds frightening; it doesn't take a lot of imagination to conjure up images of a hi-jacking, were it not for the quick actions of Mr. Petruna and that other passenger. You'd think that AirTran would offer him some sort of reward.
But there's only one problem with the story of Todd Petruna and the events that transpired on Flight 297 back on 18 November. After a little checking, the Atlanta Journal-Constitution discovered that Petruna wasn't on the flight on the date in question. While he was scheduled to be on that aircraft, Petruna didn't make the first leg of his flight, out of the Akron-Canton Airport in Ohio. As a result, he missed his scheduled connection on Flight 297.
Additionally, AirTran claims there were no altercations between passengers on the Atlanta-to-Houston flight. The airline also repeated its initial claims that the jet returned to the gate because a single passenger--a Middle Eastern man--refused to end his cell phone conversation.
While the AJC story paints a much different picture of Flight 297, it doesn't answer all of the questions raised by the incident. For example, the paper (and other media outlets) confirm that a replacement crew was brought onboard to fly the plane to Houston, after the first crew declined the assignment.
That decision was made by the Captain originally assigned to the flight. It's rather unusual for a pilot-in-command to decline an assignment, and take his crew off the aircraft. Chaplain Keith Robinson of Houston, who was allowed to board the aircraft after it returned to the gate area. Based on his conversations with passengers and crews, Robinson believes that some sort of "intentional intimidation" occurred during the first departure attempt. And apparently, that intimidation attempt was so disconcerting that the original crew refused to complete their flight to Houston.
In its p.r. response to the incident, AirTran has highlighted the fact that Ted Petruna wasn't on the Atlanta-to-Houston leg of the flight. Fair enough. If Petruna is claiming credit for non-existant heroics, he deserves public ridicule, condemnation and worse.
But Petruna's absence doesn't mitigate the fact that something serious occurred on AirTran Flight 297. At this point, no one will really say what happened, but it seems to be more complicated than a single, unruly passenger with a cell phone. Airline Captains don't make a habit of declining assignments and ordering their crew off the aircraft.
In the interest of full disclosure, AirTran should make the captain, the first officer and the cabin crews available to the press, and let them explain what transpired. Again, we're betting that the crew's description will be more disturbing than the "cell phone story" offered by the airline and the TSA.
You don't think its possible that the crew was forced to remove itself because of the crew duty day limitations?
ReplyDeleteHaving been stuck in airports and on the tarmac numerous times because a delay resulted in unacceptably extending the duty day and then having to wait for a new crew to arrive, I can attest to the fact that these things do occur. I'm not saying that is the case here, I have not first hand knowledge what-so-ever in this incident.
The version reported by snopes.com is pretty specific about the incident with the passenger that was removed. Explaining that the person did not speak English, was NOT using a cell phone but was rather looking at photos on a camera, and that he was removed because of continued non-compliance. This was all based on reporting from individuals in the immediate vicinity of the incident.
While its still possible that there was more going on than reported, it is just as likely (at this point with the given information) that the crew left the plane for duty day reasons and nothing more.
Confirmation that Petronas wasn't on the flight seems pretty straight forward. The walk-off of the flight crew isn't that clear. Where the "chaplain" fits in escapes me.
ReplyDeleteLong before this incident I've sat with tables full of former military, now airline drivers and heard their discussions of removal of unruly passengers prior to flight. Usually it is drunks, but there can be other issues.
Typically the FA requests a flight deck officer to talk to the offender. If that doesn't get results, they simply call dispatch on company freq and airport security responds within minutes.
That procedure calls into question the "intimidation" aspects of this tale.
All I know is I don't know the whole story at this point.
Having flown for that Airline, I can tell you that rarely, if ever, does the flight deck crew and the cabin crew "run out of time" at the same point.
ReplyDelete"If" the Captain removed himself and his crew, I can guarantee you that there was tremendous pressure from the Company to go ahead and operate the aircraft.