American Airlines Restraint Incident Highlights Airline Policy Divergence
An American Airlines flight saw passengers and crew use duct tape to restrain a violent individual, bringing airline policies on managing unruly passengers into sharp focus. Carriers show varied approaches to approved restraint methods, raising questions about safety and standardisation.
Violent Incident on American Airlines Flight
American Airlines flight AA618 from Dallas to Newark experienced a severe passenger incident on Thursday, September 3. Approximately one hour before landing, a first-class passenger became violent. He assaulted an adjacent passenger and then shouted racist and homophobic slurs, including one directed at a flight attendant.
Crew members and other passengers intervened to restrain him, using duct tape and zip ties. During the struggle, the passenger bit one person, leaving teeth marks. He also sustained self-inflicted wounds, leaving blood on others involved in the restraint. The aircraft subsequently diverted to Baltimore.
There, the passenger reportedly struck a police officer before finally being subdued. He now faces charges of second-degree assault and disorderly conduct.
Airline Restraint Policies Show Divergence
This incident underscores significant differences in airline restraint protocols across the industry. American Airlines is among the few US carriers that explicitly permits duct tape use for physically securing a passenger to their seat. The airline carries duct tape and a safety tape cutter specifically for this purpose on board.
Conversely, United and Southwest Airlines prohibit their flight attendants from using duct tape. United issued a reminder to its crews about this ban in 2021, following a cluster of industry incidents involving improvised restraints. One notable event saw a 13-year-old boy taped to his seat after attacking his mother.
Frontier Airlines also faced similar issues in 2021, when crew used duct tape on a passenger accused of sexually assaulting a flight attendant. The involved flight attendants were initially suspended for not following proper restraint procedure, though Frontier later reversed this decision after pressure from the flight attendants' union.
Safety Concerns Drive Policy Differences
The primary objection to duct tape as a restraint method concerns emergency evacuation procedures. If an aircraft requires rapid evacuation, a passenger secured with duct tape cannot free themselves quickly enough. This poses a significant safety risk during an unexpected emergency.
There is currently no industry-wide standard for restraint equipment; individual airlines determine their own approved methods. Most US carriers typically provide flexicuffs and seatbelt extenders. However, flexicuffs are generally not intended for physically securing someone to a seat.
Seatbelt extenders often serve this function by default for US crews, despite not being designed for it. Some European airlines, including British Airways and Virgin Atlantic, utilise purpose-built restraint systems. Korean Air notably equips its crew with Tasers, a policy expanded after a serious unruly passenger incident in 2016. American Airlines also carries proper restraint cuffs in addition to its duct tape supply.
Industry Outlook: Need for Standardisation
The divergence in restraint policies highlights a need for greater standardisation across the global aviation sector. Relying on improvised tools like duct tape introduces unnecessary risks to both restrained individuals and those managing the situation.
Purpose-built restraint devices are designed to secure individuals by their major muscle groups, effectively immobilising them without causing undue pressure or harm. Improvised methods lack this specific design and carry inherent health and safety risks, compounded by the evacuation concern.
Beyond this, using non-standard equipment complicates crew training and consistent application of safety procedures. Airlines must evaluate their current protocols and equipment. Implementing uniform, purpose-designed restraint systems could enhance safety and provide crews with more effective tools for managing challenging passenger incidents. This would benefit all involved, ensuring safer outcomes for passengers and crew members alike.
Get The Post.
The global travel stories that matter, three mornings a week. Free.
