Brawl in the air on Scoot

[Quickstatus]

I understand the logic of the hands off strategy. If one of the flight attendants become injured that they can’t perform their duties in an emergency, then the whole aircraft is in greater jeopardy.

 

[RooFlyer]

According to 7 News tonight they said after a mental health assessment no further action will be taken. So sounds perhaps like that might be the cause.

Who knows what happened here, but if it is true no charges are to be laid, there must be a pretty good amount of info to suggest this is a mental health event. I think in general both the airlines and the law enforcement bodies have a pretty hard line against just drunken idiots.

So who made the 'mental health assessment'? I doubt there was a specialist on hand to meet the aircraft, and certainly could not have made a 'clinical' examination that would have held up in court.

Whether or not it was 'obvious' to say, the police who met the plane, I don't think its their job to make a call like that. If there were prima facie grounds for arrest, or at the very least, detention, then that should have been done, and then a proper assessment made. (and I know who I'm quoting here, juddles )

Just for my info, anyone, what other apparent 'crimes' (besides assault, failing to obey the directions of cabin crew etc) are excused on the spot because of a quick 'mental health assessment?

While as discussed by others, mental health of the alleged protaganist may be the deciding factor re this decision, isn't there also the question that if the alleged fracas occurred outside Australian airspace, that the laws of Singapore would apply given it's an aircraft registered to that nation?

It was in Australian airspace. Australian laws apply, AFAIK.

No, the only way i see this outcome happening if Scoot decided not to press charges, which is gutless. If the guy had 'mental health problems' then sure, let a competent person make a clinical assessment and let the court decide.

Remember, now, this guy could be sitting next to any of us on our next flight.

 

[RooFlyer]

I understand the logic of the hands off strategy. If one of the flight attendants become injured that they can’t perform their duties in an emergency, then the whole aircraft is in greater jeopardy.

That doesn't makes sense to me.

Don't get involved with a passenger going nuts, thereby risking goodness knows what - because we all want to be OK for the next emergency. If the brawl affects kids, bottles are thrown, etc then sit back, do your nails, talk about what you are doing when we return to Sydney, whatever, because FAs can't get involved because they need to be fit for whatever happens next .

Ergo: If passengers want to enact an all in brawl on the plane, then fine, go ahead .. 'knock yourself out" ... as they say.

No, doesn't work for me.

 

[MEL_Traveller]

That doesn't makes sense to me.

Don't get involved with a passenger going nuts, thereby risking goodness knows what - because we all want to be OK for the next emergency. If the brawl affects kids, bottles are thrown, etc then sit back, do your nails, talk about what you are doing when we return to Sydney, whatever, because FAs can't get involved because they need to be fit for whatever happens next .

No, doesn't work for me.

You don't want a crew member incapacitated when all doors should have crew during landing - the critical stage of the flight. It's not ideal if one or two of your doors are unattended.

It's not saying crew won't get involved, it actually looked like one tried to earlier on. But by the end there were several passengers directly there. You porbably don't need crew piling in on top as well if they don't need to be.

So who made the 'mental health assessment'? I doubt there was a specialist on hand to meet the aircraft, and certainly could not have made a 'clinical' examination that would have held up in court.

Whether or not it was 'obvious' to say, the police who met the plane, I don't think its their job to make a call like that. If there were prima facie grounds for arrest, or at the very least, detention, then that should have been done, and then a proper assessment made. (and I know who I'm quoting here, juddles )

Just for my info, anyone, what other apparent 'crimes' (besides assault, failing to obey the directions of cabin crew etc) are excused on the spot because of a quick 'mental health assessment?

you're probably right. There may not have been a mental health check doe at the gate. But no one said there was. The news report simply said 'after a mental health check no further action will be taken'. This could have taken place an hour after landing. Or two. There was no timeline given.

 

[juddles]

So who made the 'mental health assessment'? I doubt there was a specialist on hand to meet the aircraft, and certainly could not have made a 'clinical' examination that would have held up in court.

Whether or not it was 'obvious' to say, the police who met the plane, I don't think its their job to make a call like that. If there were prima facie grounds for arrest, or at the very least, detention, then that should have been done, and then a proper assessment made. (and I know who I'm quoting here, juddles )

Just for my info, anyone, what other apparent 'crimes' (besides assault, failing to obey the directions of cabin crew etc) are excused on the spot because of a quick 'mental health assessment?




It was in Australian airspace. Australian laws apply, AFAIK.

No, the only way i see this outcome happening if Scoot decided not to press charges, which is gutless. If the guy had 'mental health problems' then sure, let a competent person make a clinical assessment and let the court decide.

Remember, now, this guy could be sitting next to any of us on our next flight.

Rooflyer, in the following I am going to use the word "we' to denote law enforcement (police), and even though I never worked for the AFP or in airports, I am strongly suspecting the same principles and procedures apply here.

We do not do mental health assessments. Period.

If there is some reason to believe that mental health is a factor, we call in whichever expert the procedures stipulate. NEVER, EVER, do we determine that a person should not be charged because we think they are mentally ill. So nothing is ever "excused on the spot".

With some crimes we need a "Complainant" before a certain charge can be laid. For example, we cannot charge person X for assaulting person Y for a simple assault without person Y "pressing charges". In more serious assaults this requirement can sometimes be removed.

But even in less serious assaults, for example two dickheads having a fight outside a nightclub, even if both heros do not wish to make a complaint against the other, there are other offences with which we can charge them that do not require a Complainant. (Disorderly, Public Nuisance, etc)

Even in the scant info I have perused on this matter, (ie some of the video), there would appear to be ample evidence of several offences, and if it is true that no charges are being laid, then I dare say that no police officer would have dared to take no action. They would clearly have been over-ridden by others, which in this case appears to be some very good and solid opinion that was legally made and binding to the police by a mental health authority.

And as a general rule of thumb, police are even far less liking of people "getting off" due to mental health reasons than the rest of the public. Because they truly experience the impact these people have on others. Having a shrink determine that the person is mad, glad, or sad, when you beleive they are simply bad, is not a fulfilling outcome.

 

[juddles]

For those not on Twitter a website called coconuts.co has a three minute plus video that shows better than some others what occurred.

Thanks Melburnian, I just perused that video

Mid-air brawl sparked by unruly passenger forces Singapore-bound Scoot flight to divert to Sydney | Coconuts Singapore

In this thread there have already been several comments about the crew. I am not exactly sure what people expect, but does it include that the smiling hostie that serves your drink is also a trained fight-club warrior?? Seriously, is there an expectation from anyone that flight attendants can physically "best' in hand to hand combat deranged persons??

What I saw in the extended video as revealed by the link that Melbournian provided, the crew are actually very much active and involved. No, they were not physically wrestling the mad person. There were already large male pax attending to that. Good on them. The video shows the crew getting as close as they could. It shows them talking to other pax, it shows them talking to the madman in his brief pause, where a lady staff member much smaller than the madman is right there in his face trying to talk to him. It shows them assisting the pax that restrained the man by getting those zip ties, etc.

There were also a couple of other details that I enjoyed. The video is taken by someone with their mobile. They stayed in their seat the whole time. They were covered in tattoos - in our society something that is often associated with "bikies" and other ostensibly "tough" people. Yet this person could barely film the action despite hiding in the chair BEHIND the tiny air hostesses. At one point in the video it looked like they were glancing down in case they had wee'd themselves.

I loved the irony of the good-meaning pax who was at the fringes of the fight (but still closer than the tattooed person) who had the t-shirt "Anti Social Social Club".

I really hope the man involved is forever barred from flying any airline. I hope the pax and staff recover from what must have been a traumatic experience. I also hope that people will not judge everyone involved, on the strength of a snippet of video, with such powerful 20:20 hindsight

 

[RooFlyer]

Rooflyer, in the following I am going to use the word "we' to denote law enforcement (police), and even though I never worked for the AFP or in airports, I am strongly suspecting the same principles and procedures apply here.

We do not do mental health assessments. Period.

<snip for space>

And as a general rule of thumb, police are even far less liking of people "getting off" due to mental health reasons than the rest of the public. Because they truly experience the impact these people have on others. Having a shrink determine that the person is mad, glad, or sad, when you beleive they are simply bad, is not a fulfilling outcome.

That's pretty much what I thought the situation was - I wasn't meaning to imply that it was the police who did the 'mental health assessment' in my post above.

i wonder if it was the Captain, as the 'executive' in charge of the aircraft, made some sort of call which got translated into 'mental heath issues' and therefore no further action.

i'm not saying that the chap didn't have such issues, but believe that anyone behaving like he did (I think that's pretty obvious) should be detained, if not arrested, and the matter sorted out according to law, not opinion.

 

[Quickstatus]

That doesn't makes sense to me..

I actually agree with you @RooFlyer .
I do understand the possible reasoning behind the hands off method - though not necessarily agree.

The diminutive Asian flight attendants is physically unmatched against the bigger more aggressive passenger. So it would be unwise to engage physically. Just like the policewomen who tend to stand back let their male compatriots do the physical stuff.

 

[MEL_Traveller]

I actually agree with you @RooFlyer .
I do understand the possible reasoning behind the hands off method - though not necessarily agree.

How do you understand it but not agree with it? Otherwise you’re suggesting the person should be locked up just to teach them an initial lesson or something?

What is the benefit you see of locking up the passenger in this case?

 

[UP4014]

I understand the logic of the hands off strategy. If one of the flight attendants become injured that they can’t perform their duties in an emergency, then the whole aircraft is in greater jeopardy.

Isn't a fight on a plane an emergency? But I digress. I do agree if you can be hands off without making things worse that's the way to go.

 

[eric2011]

you're probably right. There may not have been a mental health check doe at the gate. But no one said there was. The news report simply said 'after a mental health check no further action will be taken'. This could have taken place an hour after landing. Or two. There was no timeline given.

A mental health check at the gate may have been as simple as a phone call to a mental health facility for a pre-existing patient

 

[MEL_Traveller]

A mental health check at the gate may have been as simple as a phone call to a mental health facility for a pre-existing patient

It could have been. In which case it was not some uninformed decision made on the spot by the police.

If it is the case that no further action will be taken (and with news reporting who knows if this is accurate, or whether they simply meant 'no action at this time'), I'm pretty sure that the police would have had to have fairly concrete grounds for releasing the passenger.

 

[drron]

I want to join the Anti Social Social Club.I think I would fit right in.

On a more serious note the article accompanying the video said the plane was met by police and paramedics.Still that should not lead to a diagnosis of mental illness.don't the courts order a mental health check if it is thought to be am issue?

 

[MEL_Traveller]

.don't the courts order a mental health check if it is thought to be am issue?

They can. But that is after the person has entered the system. If there is a better alternative to keep the person out of the system that may be a better option.

We don't know the timing between the arrival and subsequent outcome of the mental health assessment. Nor do we know if the person was taken to an appropriate facility rather than simply being sent home.

 

[Quickstatus]

A mental health check at the gate may have been as simple as a phone call to a mental health facility for a pre-existing patient

Most likely get “due to privacy act...”
Also how does the airline identify preexisting mental health patients

 

[MEL_Traveller]

Also how does the airline identify preexisting mental health patients

They ask the patient? Or perhaps it was suspected and so the assessment was organised. Either way it was done, and the outcome of that was no further police action (which doesn't mean no further action by health professionals).

 

[nickykim]

Most likely get “due to privacy act...”
Also how does the airline identify preexisting mental health patients

...plus issues about discrimination on grounds of a disability...pre-existing mental health issues don't always imply violence / loss of control.

 

[RooFlyer]

...plus issues about discrimination on grounds of a disability...pre-existing mental health issues don't always imply violence / loss of control.

That's a straw man, isn't it? No-one's saying that.

I think what we do know is that there was a violent incident in the air, in Australian airspace, initiated by a passenger. On return, the plane was met by police and at some point, some-one decided no action would be taken, reported as being on 'mental health grounds'. And I agree with posters above that we don't know where and how long that assessment took, but it seemed to happen on the night.

BUT as far as I'm concerned, there should have been a detention at least, better an arrest, and then an investigation. Its a matter of whether some diagnosis of 'mental health issues' trumps the laying of charges, or if it is a defence against those charges. I don't know, but I think its the latter. Anyone? If it prevents the laying of charges, then a corrupt mental health professional could keep some very bad people completely out of court, let alone jail (NOT saying that that's anything like what's happened here!).

Again, it seems to me that the real reason this didn't proceed to arrest and formal investigation (as far as we know) is that no-one laid a complaint, probably a senior air officer, such as the Captain. And I repeat, if so, that's disgraceful.

 

[MEL_Traveller]

That's a straw man, isn't it? No-one's saying that.

I think what we do know is that there was a violent incident in the air, in Australian airspace, initiated by a passenger. On return, the plane was met by police and at some point, some-one decided no action would be taken, reported as being on 'mental health grounds'. And I agree with posters above that we don't know where and how long that assessment took, but it seemed to happen on the night.

BUT as far as I'm concerned, there should have been a detention at least, better an arrest, and then an investigation. Its a matter of whether some diagnosis of 'mental health issues' trumps the laying of charges, or if it is a defence against those charges. I don't know, but I think its the latter. Anyone? If it prevents the laying of charges, then a corrupt mental health professional could keep some very bad people completely out of court, let alone jail (NOT saying that that's anything like what's happened here!).

Again, it seems to me that the real reason this didn't proceed to arrest and formal investigation (as far as we know) is that no-one laid a complaint, probably a senior air officer, such as the Captain. And I repeat, if so, that's disgraceful.

This was an immediate issue, not one where you're going to have your corrupt health professional 'on call' to bail you out.

What's the purpose of arresting someone and locking them up when (a) it may serve no purpose (other than some people's desire to punish), (b) may actually be detrimental to the health of the person involved (could exacerbate the situation) and (c) will cost the taxpayer money in detention costs and staff costs.

In a way it's a little bit like someone being involved in a car accident. Do you arrest someone seriously injured and lock them up and some time down the track decide they actually needed to go to hospital? No, we take them to hospital first. Do we arrest someone who's attempted suicide and charge them for being on the bridge when they shouldn't have been? Or do we take them to hospital and get the proper treatment they need?

 

[RooFlyer]

This was an immediate issue, not one where you're going to have your corrupt health professional 'on call' to bail you out.

Which is exactly what i said.

What's the purpose of arresting someone and locking them up when (a) it may serve no purpose (other than some people's desire to punish), (b) may actually be detrimental to the health of the person involved (could exacerbate the situation) and (c) will cost the taxpayer money in detention costs and staff costs.

It might not, it may be... etc. On the other hand, it might, and may not be!! Policing does cost, unfortunately. Its an overhead that our society bears for the good of society.

All I am advocating is that a proper investigation be made. Mental illness can be faked - hopefully not to a competent professional, but I'm sure it happens. I am not confident that a proper assessment could have been made that night, which is why I think the person should have been detained - in a proper facility, if you like, under supervision, - but detained pending investigation. Like I said, I don't know if a diagnosis of 'mental health issues' is a trump that stops investigation, or is a defence against it, but I still think its the latter. What do you think?

In a way it's a little bit like someone being involved in a car accident. Do you arrest someone seriously injured and lock them up and some time down the track decide they actually needed to go to hospital? No, we take them to hospital first. Do we arrest someone who's attempted suicide and charge them for being on the bridge when they shouldn't have been? Or do we take them to hospital and get the proper treatment they need?

More straw man arguments, I think.

Yes, take then all to a hospital but if there is a good suspicion that they are at fault, broken the law, then take them to a hospital, under supervision for investigation when they are competent to be interviewed. In the meantime, you take statements from witnesses to find out the nature and seriousness of what might have happened. Again, illness, in my opinion, should not STOP investigation with a view to charges being laid. Do you think otherwise?