Autistic girl kicked off flight because captain was uncomfor

Post Reply New Topic

Huh? What other way does scratching mean? Doesn't it mean using your fingernails to run them across someone's skin? if you do it hard enough it will rip it open making it bleed.

all executive decisions are only in the jurisdiction of the flight deck. the cockpit crew has a responsibility to constantly monitor the flight dynamics of the plane, and any possibility of distraction from those duties is not to be allowed to eventuate.
if the captain is presented with the likelihood of the cockpit's attention being diverted from airplane flight operations, then the captain is bound to circumvent this happening, and therefore the only course of action is to land the plane as soon as possible and de-board the child so she can be handled by people on the ground who's duties are not tied to flight operations.

is the captain supposed to be educated in abnormal psychology prior to his certificate being issued, else is he expected to take his mind off the controls and look it up on the internet ?

many catastrophic outcomes have ensued primarily due to the flight crew's (as opposed to the cabin crew) attention being diverted to non flight essential issues. an example was a L-1011 crashing into the florida everglades due to the flight crew's distraction concerning a 20c light bulb in the dash board. no one noticed that the autopilot had disconnected and their ground proximity was eroded unnoticed until the situation was unrecoverable.

the cabin crew have no authority to make executive decisions as to whether a potentially unusual situation arising in the cabin is not reportable to the captain. the responsibility lies with the captain as to what action should be taken, and so the decision to circumvent possible major distractions to their attention to the flight dynamics must be the first choice, and the expedient solution was to land the plane as soon as possible.

the child was not blow darted or sedated or hogtied. she was landed safely and dispatched from the plane to be cared for on the ground.

I think scolded is probably the right word, and definitely not justification to kick people out.

Perhaps it only sounds threatening when AS people are involved somehow. Perhaps they were already scared of the girl, that seems to be common these days.

Junior was posting definitions straight out of a dictionary, hedging words to imply I was the one that didn't understand. This is after explaining it, it's not an unfair characterisation to say they may not have the ability to understand the nuance.

I think Moro was implying that the air hostess should have understood that it actually meant stimming.

Ah I see. I was wondering why he was glossing over that word. He wasn't making sense. The mom mentioned meltdown and then crying and scratching. If a meltdown wouldn't involve violence, then why would she mention the word scratch you know? I know some people on the spectrum do self harm than inflicting it on others. Only very few inflict their pain on others. If an autistic person is violent, is it because of their autism or do they have some other problem?

I see you're back to your straw man, that's your favorite isn't it? If they didn't know what Beegle meant, or what the context was, there's a very simple way to solve that: Ask them about it. But that's not what happened now was it, instead it was warped out of context so as the grant themselves an excuse to discriminate.

Deliberately. Obtuse.

NTs wake up every morning, cackling, "How can I discriminate today? Bwah, hah, hah!"

That reductio ad absurdum, not a straw man.

What? ...Which word? Crying or scratching? Both are completely BENIGN. She's a 15 year old girl, not some kind of monster. She's not going to cry a small pool of tear then try and drown someone in it, nor is she going to run around clawing peoples faces off, it's complete and utter nonsense.

If those words are said about an NT, they're never met with such a discriminatory response, it's; "No, they can't possibly mean to drown someone or claw away at people". Yet when it's about an AS person, suddenly it's "OMG! They might hurt someone!"

Your last question is interesting -- interesting that you would even ask it in the first place. There's already more than enough forensic and criminal studies to conclude that AS people do not commit violent crime, that when violent crime occurs at the hands of an AS person, it is almost always precipitated by a comorbid psychiatric disorder, such as severe depression or psychosis. And what of other minorities? If the person in the story was black, would you be asking: If a black person is violent, is it because of their race or do they have some other problem?

Go back and read what you said,

Actually don't bother yourself. You're a fallacy spouting machine, oh and look, you're back to ad hom. How you don't even seem to realise how weak and broken your nonsense is, is beyond me. Do yourself a favor and stop posting.

Your calling my posts ad hominem attacks just shows you can't perceive irony.

Your argument would hold true, but only if, ALL the kids, and ALL their parents were de-planed, but that doesn't happen now does it. On many, many flights you have screaming kids, and crying babies, yet they aren't removed for the "safety and comfort" of the passengers, they don't even talk to the parents about it. You even hear from other passengers (and I'm probably paraphrasing here) "She wasn't making any more noise than other kids." That doesn't seem like a strange double standard to you?

I think it's much more likely that they were already afraid of her, and not because of anything she did or her parents said. But because she was different to them, they viewed her as "the other", and were afraid because of their own intolerance and insecurities.

No, she wasn't blow darted and hogtied. She was told that the "Captain" wasn't comfortable having her on board. She was escorted off the plane by police, like she was some sort of criminal, and in front of all those people. Then United Airlines, instead of apologising, publicly called her dangerous, by saying they removed her from the plane for the "safety and comfort" of others. Then you have this very public story about the child, with so many postulating that she could injure or even kill people, that she might go crazy and open an exit mid-flight. If you're imply that this is a trivial matter, I disagree, and don't think it's something that can be so easily forgotten.

Last edited by Moromillas on 21 May 2015, 10:45 pm, edited 1 time in total.

You accused me of being deliberately obtuse, which simply doesn't invalidate anything I've said, nor does it make all your strange nonsense suddenly make sense. It's the equivalent of going; "Oh, you're just a dumb dumb poopy head." where kids would literally say that in kindergarten. I shouldn't have to explain this to you.

it was not the other passengers that were the reason for the diversion. the child and her parent were assessed on the ground and not found unsuitable to board another flight. the fact that the girl was autistic was learned on the ground as far as i can determine, and that fact provided mitigation for the unusual behaviour, and so it was determined that there was no threat at that point and she was allowed to fly on the next flight available.

i have found no articles which state that the mother mentioned autism in the air, and even if she did, it would need to be established as fact before executive decisions could be carried out. that fact can not be established in the air in a timely manner due to the distraction it would cause to the pilot's attention and so the only course of action is to let the matter be resolved on the ground.




crying babies and screaming children are not considered to be "unusual", and as such do not warrant distraction from flight operations to assess.




the plane was not diverted primarily because passengers were uncomfortable. it was diverted due to the potential of a situation arising that would consume too much attention from the flight crew to deal with while remaining fully cognizant of the flight dynamics. it is not up to the passengers to decide the correct course of action because they are not trained in dealing with situations mid flight.



i do not arrive at conclusions based on "likelihoods"

the passengers opinions had no bearing on the decision to land the plane. their attitudes can not be factored into litigation aimed at the airline staff.
with respect to the irrelevant issue of the passengers' attitudes, it is quite unnerving to be placed in an unusual situation 36,000 feet above the ground with no means of just getting off and running clear. add to that the fact that autism was not mentioned in the air and i would also be in agreement with the decision to get the plane down as soon as possible.


it is necessary for police to be the ones to deal with as yet unknown situations.


"dangerous" is an inferred connotation that is inevitable when mentioning compromisation of safety. if safety can not be established beyond a reasonable level of certainty, then one has to strive to establish that level of certainty which is expedited by landing the plane and letting the ground deal with it. "comfort" is something that i would not have added to the public announcement, but it is expected that the airline will try to appeal to other customers with that inclusion.


due mainly to the mother's opportunistic conflagration of the matter.


whilst i am aware that cabin doors open inward and are forced shut by the pressurization of the fuselage at those altitudes, most passengers would not be aware of this (as they would not be aware of the characteristics of autism (while they were not aware that autism was a factor)). it is therefore reasonable to imagine that that was the main concern of passengers with respect to unstructured activity occurring in the cabin.



the damages that can be sought by the mother can only relate (and spuriously at that) to inconvenience she and her daughter experienced as a result of the unscheduled landing. the uneducated opinions of bystanders are not a factor.

i am in concordance with the decision to land the plane.

Yep I will also go along with deliberately obtuse. Lot of stuff you wrote is not what I meant nor is it what I said. You just stuck words in my mouth.

Interesting you mention violent crimes because to me a violent crime is shooting up a school or holding someone at gun point or taking a knife and chase someone with it or take anything that can be used as a weapon or stabbing someone. What else?

Violence is any sort of aggression and that could be scratching, hitting, biting, throwing things, breaking things, hair pulling, kicking, pushing someone down, punching, choking, mmm what else? My mom worked with an autistic student and he would bite and scratch and pinch to get your attention. My teacher aide also knew a little boy with autism and he would pull your hair if you got too close. But these were small children, not 15 year olds. I guess you are okay with being scratched by someone and TBH I would feel uncomfortable with any person if their parent or caregiver informed they may try and scratch and the child is the size of an adult. I don't want to be assaulted or see any violence and if anyone ever laid a hand on me and did a violent act, I will defend myself and yes that means I will be violent back because it would be self defense unless the person was no longer attacking me. I would try and get out of there ASAP.

Not according to United Airlines it wasn't. Their official statement is that they did it for the "safety and comfort" of their passengers. Their words, not mine.




Mentioning if you're an AS person or not, is irrelevant. You still get discrimination, with or without mentioning AS, and even still without doing anything "unusual". They would have known, in the air, that the person is different from them.




That's incorrect, they already resolved the situation in the air.




That's correct, crying babies and screaming children are just part and parcel of flying. Yet when it's a 15 year old AS kid that does the exact same thing, it's this strange and aberrant behaviour that we should all be deeply concerned about. It is indeed a double standard, and an appalling discriminatory one.




And yet you've done so with your hypothetical story, of being de-planed because she would have likely distracted the flight crew which would have possibly ended up crashing the plane.

How can your hypothetical hold true, after they ALREADY resolved the situation in the air.
Why doesn't you hypothetical hold true, for every other screaming child and crying baby. Where is this litany of stories of parents and their unruly children being de-planed and escorted away by the police?

No, when these sorts of things happen, it's because of discrimination, as it's quite common, and a much more likely (and plausible) scenario here.




I wasn't talking about the passengers, I was talking about the cabin crew, and the flight crew.
The cabin crew should have never made it into an issue where they need to take it to the "Captain".
The "Captain" should have asked, "Why are you telling me about this?" Yet instead it was somehow a cause for alarm.

No, it's the same discrimination as it always is. What would be considered "just walking around" for NTs, turns into "snooping around" for AS people. "Looking at people" for NTs, turns into "stalking other people" for those on the spectrum. And in this particular instance; "Scratching" would have been turned into "trying to claw someone's face off". While NTs are given the benefit of the doubt, that luxury isn't extended to us, and we have to put up with this appalling discrimination.




No, it certainly is not. I've trained for security, and calling in police is reserved for making an arrest, specifically for criminals and criminal prosecution. No you don't call in the police to have them escort a little girl and her parents off a plane. There's more than enough systems in place, that you don't have to shrug your shoulder and go "Oh, guess it's time to call the police." At an Airport, there's even a button at terminals that you can press to have the bomb squad turn up in under a minute.




Incorrect, the Mother didn't de-plane the child, nor did she put out an official statement labeling the child as dangerous.




Yes the tort is indeed a direct result of the unnecessary and unscheduled landing. I'm not talking about the opinions of bystanders, being escorted off a plane by police is no small thing, especially for a 15 year old. Being smeared as a danger to the public will have damages for years to come, because of imputations that that even you admitted to, and that's discounting psychological damages from a very public and very traumatic situation. What part of that is spurious?




Then you're concordance with discrimination.

The plane shouldn't have landed, when it wasn't landed every other time an NT child was noisy on a flight.

Because ad hom is all you have left.

That means, it's time for you to let go of that nonsense, and accept the facts.

Also, that's an interesting story, but I don't see how it's relevant, and I'm hoping you're not going to use it to generalise.