Just two days after 23-year-old Nigerian national Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab attempted to blow up flight 253 en route from Amsterdam to Detroit, passengers suffered a potential scare on the same flight 253 today. You can read the full story here. Luckily today’s incident, unlike the thwarted attack on Christmas day, was not a legitimate threat but rather a series of coincidences and a case of stomach distress on the part of another Nigerian national with no connection to Abdulmutallab. Although today we did not have to rely on a heroic Dutch filmmaker to prevent a plane from being blown up there was certainly what I deem to be a courageous and appropriate response on the part of airline officials. According to DHS press secretary Sara Kuban, “A passenger on today’s Northwest flight 253 from Amsterdam to Detroit spent an unusually long time in the aircraft lavatory. Due to this unusual behavior, the airline notified TSA and the agency directed the flight to taxi to a remote area upon landing to be met by law enforcement and DHS.” Additionally, the man was taken into custody “after becoming verbally disruptive on landing.” While some might posture that taking an unusally long time to attend to nature’s calling in the latrine is not a crime (and they would be right, because it’s not), the situation was not that cut and dry.
Let me take a moment to put myself in that situation. I’m a flight attendant or other crew member serving on the same flight that two days previously was almost blown up, save for the Dutch filmmaker we read about above. I’m probably a little bit apprehensive about this flight, even though the logical part of me is reminding me that I’m more likely to be struck by lightning than be killed in a terrorist attack and that my drive to the airport was significantly more dangerous statistically speaking than my trans-atlantic flight will be. I know those things to be hard, cold facts, but I also probably know some of the crew from the other flight 253 and have done more than a little bit of thinking about what would have happened, had that explosive device actually detonated. I also might be saying an extra prayer as the passengers are boarding, because even though those facts are cold and hard, there is a part of me that knows there are no guaranteees. Whatever apprehension I’m feeling before takeoff, I tuck that away into a compartment somewhere else just as my passengers will stow their carry-ons for the duration of the flight, and conduct my duties as a professional. I then notice a man who is in the lavatory for an extended period of time (it turned out to be a total of an hour) and though I might not think much of it since I know that airline food isn’t exactly the easiest on the digestive system, I also know this: “As the (December 25 flight 253) plane approached Detroit, Abdulmutallab went to the bathroom for 20 minutes. When he returned to his seat, he complained of an upset stomach and covered himself with a blanket.” I know what happened after that, too. That’s when something popped and passgengers saw Adbulmutallab’s leg on fire after his explosive device didn’t explode the way he had planned. Knowing all of this and after asking the man to leave the lavatory and him contuniting to be uncooperative, I go ahead and report that something suspicious is going on, at which point my airline notifies TSA. Upon landing, the baggage on my flight goes through additional screening before taxiing to the gate and nothing suspicious is found. The man is taken into custody, but Later, Kuban adds, “the passenger in question, a Nigerian national, was removed from the flight and interviewed by the FBI; indications at this time are that the individual’s behavior is due to legitimate illness, and no other suspicious behavior or materials have been found.”
So some might say that the airline notification, additional TSA screening and searching, taking the man into custody and interviewing him were a waste of time and resources. And they might be right, because ultimately the man proved to be experiencing stomach distress rather than attempting to conduct an act of terrorism. But who can fault the flight attendant/crew member for taking the action that was taken given the circumstances of the situation? Apparently some people. While reading about the incident from various linked news sources on twitter as events were unfolding, I came across a few tweets that were particularly irksome to me. One was: “flying in America: where being foreign and Incontinent is a national security issue.” It sounds rather pithy so I’ll give him that, but it completely ignores the situation. Being foreign and incontinent was not the national security issue. It was being verbally disruptive and not cooperating when the aircraft was preparing to land after being in the lavatory for an hour. The comment continues to not be able to hold water. Given that the flight was going from Nigeria (a foreign country) to Amsterdam (a city in a foreign country) to Detroit, there were likely more than a few foreigners. It’s not as if every foreigner using the lavatory was reported, only the one who didn’t cooperate and exhibited behavior similar to a passenger that tried to blow up a plane on the same flight two days before. The person who posed that tweet also coined the hashtag (a hashtag is when you use the # sign to tag a topic, later allowing twitter users to filter tweets based on that topic) #FWN which he said equals “flying while Nigerian.” Once again, the issue was not that this man was Nigerian (since the flight originated in Nigeria, there were probably a number of Nigerian passengers on board.) Frankly, it does not matter what nationality this man was, and we do not even know if the crew was aware of his nationality or not. It doesn’t affect the actions that they took. The crew acted as they should have during the incident. All passengers landed safely and DHS and the FBI cleared the ill passenger of any suspected wrongdoing. So instead of the snarky tweets that falsely characterize the situation and seek to imply some sort of xenophobic action, I’d personally like to thank the crew for taking the steps they did in what was surely a fearful situation with many unknowns. My guess is many of the passengers thanked them as well.
i have no problems with the second flight 253; my beef is entirely with the first flight.
a man — doesn’t matter what nationality, etc. — flew without any checked luggage on a one-way ticket, after his dad called the u.s. embassy and in short said ‘my son’s gone rogue.’ that’s unforgivable.
the second flight did what they should have done. something out of the ordinary happened, and they followed through on it, rather than turning a blind eye to seemingly obvious anomalies like the fact that the foiled bomber didn’t have any luggage for a one-way transcontinental flight.