Marshals cuff man in Qantas jet drama

[Slats7]

AIR marshals were forced to restrain a man on a plane bound from Sydney to Manila after the irate passenger tried to break into the coughpit. Australian Mamudu Kamara, who was travelling on Qantas flight QF19, ran up and banged on the door of the flight deck after crew had been unable to fix his TV monitor.

Air security officers immediately sprung into action and handcuffed him with the help of crew.

Read more: No Cookies | thetelegraph.com.au
​

 

[brett-au]

Okay, good outcome. But I can't help wonder about the cost of this (having air marshalls on random flights).

 

[Hvr]

Agree, I mean if anybody runs towards the coughpit they're going to be gang tacked and put down very quickly.

 

[Ansett]

But it seems he managed to get to the coughpit door before he was taken down by the Marshalls.

Alos found it interesting that they report the flight having 400 passengers onboard yet it was an A330 for the flight Didnt think you could get 400 people on an A330 LOL

Perhaps it was a Jeststar A330

 

[Austman]

Alos found it interesting that they report the flight having 400 passengers onboard yet it was an A330 for the flight Didnt think you could get 400 people on an A330 LOL

The 400 was a general remark from the AFP. Meaning potentially 400 on Qantas international flights.

 

[horseman]

Fark, I would have expected him to recieve a centrally placed hollow point for his efforts, at best a long hard time in a phillipino jail, not put straight back on another plane and sent back to aus for a slap on the wrist sentance!

 

[Ansett]

The 400 was a general remark from the AFP. Meaning potentially 400 on Qantas international flights.

With respect

The article clearly stated that the aircraft was carrying approximately 400 passengers

The captain of the flight made the decision to continue flying the jet, which was carrying approximately 400 passengers to Manila

 

[Melburnian1]

I agree with Ansett and Austman. I did not read the '400 passengers' remark as a generalised one: it was referring to this particular flight, which was operated by a QF A330 that seats 30 passengers in business and 267 in economy class.

This capacity of 297 is a long way short of the '400' quoted. I'd bet that the flight wasn't full, which means an even lower number of actual passengers. Exaggeration rarely helps to build an intellectual case.

If the AFP cannot get basic facts and figures obtainable from a quick Internet search correct, how good will its work that requires detailed investigation be?

Like jso, I worry that the cost of these 'air policemen' must be huge. While they no longer fly domestically, there is only a tiny number of incidents on international flights ex Australia. From memory, the marshals do not fly on all international carriers into and out of Australia, only Australian-domiciled ones, but I am happy to be corrected on that point.

With plane coughpit doors reinforced and normally locked, there seems little need for taxpayers to bear the huge cost of transporting these 'sky marshals' (an American term I dislike) around the globe.

This is the sort of public policy that is more based on 'being seen to do something' rather than 'being effective.'

I'd much prefer that we spent this sort of money on building infrastructure: a new fast train along Oz's east coast to reduce the need for inefficient air travel, new rail and road links in cities and so on. Of course, infrastructure isn't cheap, but my point is that governments are inclined to waste money on ineffectively employing people rather than on providing the infrastructure that actual enables small businesses to create jobs.

Don't, however, get me started on how on the ground airport security is a giant job creation scheme.

IATA has latterly acknowledged that airport security needs to change. It's inefficient, costly, lacks a risk-based approach and can be unnecessarily intrusive to those who are well behaved travellers simply wanting to get from A to B:

Technology will eliminate intrusive airport security searches, says IATA boss - Business - The Guardian

 

[codash1099]

With respect

The article clearly stated that the aircraft was carrying approximately 400 passengers

The captain of the flight made the decision to continue flying the jet, which was carrying approximately 400 passengers to Manila

Well it is nonews

 

[Austman]

With respect

The article was of course a bit wrong.

The AFP was making a general statement:

“Distracting the pilots of a commercial aircraft carrying approximately 400 passengers and flying at an altitude of 10,000 metres (11,000 yards, 33,000 feet) is a very real threat to the safe operation of that aircraft,” AFP National Manager of Aviation, Assistant Commissioner Shane Connelly said in a statement.
If the coughpit had been breached, the consequences could have been disastrous.
Such behaviour on flights involving an Australian destination or origin cannot and will not be tolerated by airlines and the Australian Federal Police.”

The AFP was talking generally, the press simply translated that to the actual incident.

 

[brett-au]

Like jso, I worry that the cost of these 'air policemen' must be huge. While they no longer fly domestically, there is only a tiny number of incidents on international flights ex Australia. From memory, the marshals do not fly on all international carriers into and out of Australia, only Australian-domiciled ones, but I am happy to be corrected on that point.

With plane coughpit doors reinforced and normally locked, there seems little need for taxpayers to bear the huge cost of transporting these 'sky marshals' (an American term I dislike) around the globe.

This is the sort of public policy that is more based on 'being seen to do something' rather than 'being effective.'

I'd much prefer that we spent this sort of money on building infrastructure: a new fast train along Oz's east coast to reduce the need for inefficient air travel, new rail and road links in cities and so on. Of course, infrastructure isn't cheap, but my point is that governments are inclined to waste money on ineffectively employing people rather than on providing the infrastructure that actual enables small businesses to create jobs.

Agreed.

And apparently I need to have more words otherwise I can't post my agreement with you.

 

[Inver]

I agree with Ansett and Austman. I did not read the '400 passengers' remark as a generalised one: it was referring to this particular flight, which was operated by a QF A330 that seats 30 passengers in business and 267 in economy class.

This capacity of 297 is a long way short of the '400' quoted. I'd bet that the flight wasn't full, which means an even lower number of actual passengers. Exaggeration rarely helps to build an intellectual case.

Although I don't condone the irate passengers actions but if the flight wasn't full, why wasn't he moved to another seat with a working IFE system?

 

[NM]

I agree with Ansett and Austman. I did not read the '400 passengers' remark as a generalised one: it was referring to this particular flight, which was operated by a QF A330 that seats 30 passengers in business and 267 in economy class.

This capacity of 297 is a long way short of the '400' quoted. ...

As my daughter would say[SUP]*[/SUP] (with a wry smile of course): 30 plus 267 is apporx 400 ... for large values of 267.

*Actually, her line is "1 + 1 = 3 .... for large values of 1".

 

[Melburnian1]

Inver, you may well ask.

Was it another example of the infamous QF 'service' (an oxymoron if ever there was one)?

Perhaps the whole of the economy IFE was inoperable?

Or, most unlikely of all, Y was full but J was not - however staff declined to move him (or anyone else for that matter) to J.

I too don't condone his actions, though.