Autistic child kicked off flight

Gone Drinking

http://rt.com/usa/257365-flight-emergency-landing-autism/

The above is an article about a family that were removed from a flight because their autistic daughter had two episodes in 30 minutes, or thereabouts.

What are peoples thoughts on this? Did they do the right thing?

I have to say, I actually think the mother made the situation worse for herself here by telling staff that if she didn't get a hot meal her daughter may lash out at someone. Straight away, the staff have been informed of something that may not be particularly true but the information they've been given is what they have to work on.

I'm sure if the daughter did get upset the mother and father would have been able to control her, but they've told the staff something a little sensationalised in order to get the meal and when the child had the second episode in 30 minutes, they had to take the information they were given and the safety of the other passengers into account.

I feel for the family and the staff probably did overreact but if something serious had happened (pretty unlikely id say) they would have been accountable given what they were told at the start.

basill

Don't believe everything you read in the newspapers. If you think the captain of a major airline would divert an aeroplane incurring United significant costs and exposing himself to legal action willy nilly then think again. The truth will no doubt be quite different to what the online rag is describing.

L1011

Its not a paper - but its a virulently anti-american news source, so that will colour nearly anything they write.

sportloto86

Gone Drinking wrote:

I'm sure if the daughter did get upset the mother and father would have been able to control her, but they've told the staff something a little sensationalised in order to get the meal

Have you ever seen "meltdown" of an autistic person? "Get upset" would not be the right words to describe situation.

sportloto86

L1011 wrote:

Its not a paper - but its a virulently anti-american news source, so that will colour nearly anything they write.

Can't post the link but Sky has covered the same. Didn't see much difference.

Chloris

As somebody who works with a lot of autistic children, I have to say that the mother did the right thing telling the attendant the seriousness of the situation. A hot meal was available on the flight, it's not asking too much to accommodate a woman whose child is disabled.

She was also correct to sue the airline because hopefully, afterwards they will be required to train their staff how to treat people with autism. Because of the "unknownness", the child was treated like somebody who was a danger even though she had not done anything out of the way. Creating a situation where a child with a disability is maligned and represented as an evil definitely won't lend itself well to a safe environment.

America has so many cases of autism. It's absolutely exploded onto the scene. If people don't learn how to manage when they have to serve autistic people in restaurants, accommodate them on airplanes... the difficulties they'll have in society will make it impossible for them to be able to integrate, regardless of where they are on the spectrum.

Gone Drinking

Chloris wrote: »

As somebody who works with a lot of autistic children, I have to say that the mother did the right thing telling the attendant the seriousness of the situation. A hot meal was available on the flight, it's not asking too much to accommodate a woman whose child is disabled.

She was also correct to sue the airline because hopefully, afterwards they will be required to train their staff how to treat people with autism. Because of the "unknownness", the child was treated like somebody who was a danger even though she had not done anything out of the way. Creating a situation where a child with a disability is maligned and represented as an evil definitely won't lend itself well to a safe environment.

So how can you blame the airline then? They gave the mother the hot meal she requested but the child started to have another episode anyway.

Given what you're saying about the seriousness of the situation, then was the airline not right to divert and remove them? The staff have to think of all the passengers and the safety of everyone.

Chloris

Gone Drinking wrote:

So how can you blame the airline then? They gave the mother the hot meal she requested but the child started to have another episode anyway.

Read the article properly, she was quietly watching a film when the emergency services kicked her off. The delay in getting the hot meal due to the stupidity of the staff is what caused the risk of her having an 'episode'. She hadn't become agitated enough to have a behavioural issue by the time her mother spotted the risk, the staff delayed her by declining her request for a meal. Seeing the mother having to forcefully negotiate with people is obviously going to distress a child with special needs. Although, like I already noted, the article doesn't say that she became cross, just that the mother stated that if she wasn't fed, there would be the risk of it.

Gone Drinking wrote:

Given what you're saying about the seriousness of the situation, then was the airline not right to divert and remove them? The staff have to think of all the passengers and the safety of everyone.

Why didn't that occur to the staff before they escalated the situation? They were being obtuse and unreasonable in declining the remedy and then they threw them off the plane even though they were as entitled to be there as anyone else.

whupdedo

Could the child not have been sedated if she was that much of a risk of exploding with rage and putting other people at risk

Chloris

whupdedo wrote:

Could the child not have been sedated if she was that much of a risk of exploding with rage and putting other people at risk

Some people don't like to administer drugs to their children for the convenience of others.

whupdedo

Chloris wrote: »

Some people don't like to administer drugs to their children for the convenience of others.

My thinking is if the child is that much of a risk to herself and others, she shouldn't be allowed fly unless sedated or find a way to travel that won't divert aeroplanes

Chloris

whupdedo wrote:

My thinking is if the child is that much of a risk to herself and others, she shouldn't be allowed fly unless sedated or find a way to travel that won't divert aeroplanes

It wasn't her way of travelling that diverted an airplane, it was an overreacting pilot informed by his staff who had caused a scene over the inconvenience of heating up a meal. She should be allowed to fly just like anybody else.

billie1b

Chloris wrote: »

Some people don't like to administer drugs to their children for the convenience of others.

And some airlines dont like to risk the safety of all their passengers and crew for the convenience of an uncontrolable child

Tenger

whupdedo wrote: »

Could the child not have been sedated if she was that much of a risk of exploding with rage and putting other people at risk

No. That is not an acceptable option.


I think both sides are at fault here.

Chloris wrote: »

......
Why didn't that occur to the staff before they escalated the situation? They were being obtuse and unreasonable in declining the remedy and then they threw them off the plane even though they were as entitled to be there as anyone else.

How did the staff know they would escalate the situation? Airline staff everyday have to deal with passengers making demands for things that are not available or that they are not entitled to.


I would question the mother here, if she knew that hot food was such an issue she could have called the airline in advance to order hot food, or inquire if they could heat a meal up for her onboard. Its not as if the airline lied to her about hot food being available.
What if the family had been on an airline with no hot at all, would the staff still be "obtuse and unreasonable"?

The airline policy (in question) is hot food for Business class passengers only.
The staff appear to have responded with normal airline policy at first and then after reassessing the situation they bent the rules to ensure the young girl was able to have hot food.
It could well be that the aircraft commander then decided that this could reoccur before arrival and that divert and offload was the best operational decision. (personally I think this was a bit much)

sportloto86 wrote: »

Have you ever seen "meltdown" of an autistic person? "Get upset" would not be the right words to describe situation.

I have in fact seen this occur twice onboard an aircraft. In once case departure was delayed by a child refusing to take their seat, the crew worked with the family until the child was calm.
In the other situation (while I cannot say it was autism exactly) the crew had to directly intervene as a teenager was attacking their mother. The crew member was able to distract the girl for approx half the duration of the flight (DUB-GLA) to ensure that everyone got to their destination.

I would agree, "get upset" is not the right description at all.

Chloris

billie1b wrote:

And some airlines dont like to risk the safety of all their passengers and crew for the convenience of an uncontrolable child

The child was never out of control. The mother told the staff that the child would become agitated and a possible risk of scratching if they didn't prepare the meal she had requested.

You're displaying such prejudice and a complete lack of understanding of autism; the kind of ignorance which perpetuates this type of mistreatment of people with disabilities. Do you think people with dementia shouldn't be allowed to fly either? They can get unruly and be at risk of attacking, but an airplane of all places is surely somewhere they won't have to confront complete belligerence and obstructions to fulfilling their basic needs.

Tenger

Chloris wrote: »

The child was never out of control. The mother told the staff that the child would become agitated and a possible risk of scratching if they didn't prepare the meal she had requested.

You're displaying such prejudice and a complete lack of understanding of autism; the kind of ignorance which perpetuates this type of mistreatment of people with disabilities. Do you think people with dementia shouldn't be allowed to fly either? They can get unruly and be at risk of attacking, but an airplane of all places is surely somewhere they won't have to confront complete belligerence and obstructions to fulfilling their basic needs.

Why should the mother get a meal that she isn't entitled to? Airlines in th US are very very stratified places, you get exactly what you pay for.
What if the airline had no more hot food? What if the airline only had buy-on-board hot food? Why was she not more prepared to be able to look after her daughter? Would she have demanded hot food on Greyhound or Amtrak?
Plenty of families travel every day with children with special needs, they don't look for extra's,they just ask for a little understanding.
They are two parties in the wrong in this incident.

And actually I have also experienced an elderly lady travelling alone who had dementia...she should not have been alone taking 2 flights from Dallas to New York to Dublin. The poor lady started getting very agitated mid way across the Atlantic. Very distressing for her and for the crew who had to deal with the situation. Her son (who booked her and left her at the airport) should be fined for abandonment.

Chloris

Tenger wrote:

I would agree, "get upset" is not the right description at all.

So you're basing your understanding on two such incidents you witnessed a a bystander, with no other experience of dealing with people who have special needs? I work with special needs children and adults every day and I seldom have to diffuse a meltdown situation, in spite of teaching children who are very far towards the severe side of the spectrum. It's all about prevention, and if they had any training they would have known that.

Tenger wrote:

How did the staff know they would escalate the situation? Airline staff everyday have to deal with passengers making demands for things that are not available or that they are not entitled to.

Yes, but when you're dealing with somebody who has a disability, it's important to accommodate them in any way. I'm not guessing you're the type of person who would hold a door open for somebody in a wheelchair... if you think obliging a request for a meal for a girl who has autism is going above and beyond, it just shows the glaring ignorance of people who would rather have them hidden away rather than accept and facilitate them to make their lives that bit easier.

Tenger wrote:

I would question the mother here, if she knew that hot food was such an issue she could have called the airline in advance to order hot food, or inquire if they could heat a meal up for her onboard. Its not as if the airline lied to her about hot food being available. What if the family had been on an airline with no hot at all, would the staff still be "obtuse and unreasonable"?

You're right, the mother should have had the foresight. But she didn't deserve the indignity of being thrown off a plane. They didn't cause a scene, from what I can tell. She simply made a reasonable request and it was denied, creating the risk of a 'meltdown' which wasn't necessary.

Chloris

Tenger wrote:

And actually I have also experienced an elderly lady travelling alone who had dementia...she should not have been alone taking 2 flights from Dallas to New York to Dublin. The poor lady started getting very agitated mid way across the Atlantic. Very distressing for her and for the crew who had to deal with the situation. Her son (who booked her and left her at the airport) should be fined for abandonment.

We're obviously talking about people who have severe neurological issues being accompanied. The lady with dementia was also certainly not in the wrong in that situation.

Tenger wrote:

Why should the mother get a meal that she isn't entitled to? Airlines in th US are very very stratified places, you get exactly what you pay for. What if the airline had no more hot food? What if the airline only had buy-on-board hot food? Why was she not more prepared to be able to look after her daughter? Would she have demanded hot food on Greyhound or Amtrak?

Now you're just making wild conjectures. They did have the food and instead of simply telling her they'd have to charge her extra, they withheld it.

Plenty of families travel every day with children with special needs, they don't look for extra's,they just ask for a little understanding. They are two parties in the wrong in this incident.

Fair enough, she should have planned it better. But it's the first incident of its kind I've ever heard of, and it gives me some hope that it will result in the airlines having to train staff to deal with the wide diversity of people they'll encounter, particularly the ones who definitely don't need more agro in their lives like this woman and her child.

billie1b

Chloris wrote: »

The child was never out of control. The mother told the staff that the child would become agitated and a possible risk of scratching if they didn't prepare the meal she had requested.

You're displaying such prejudice and a complete lack of understanding of autism; the kind of ignorance which perpetuates this type of mistreatment of people with disabilities. Do you think people with dementia shouldn't be allowed to fly either? They can get unruly and be at risk of attacking, but an airplane of all places is surely somewhere they won't have to confront complete belligerence and obstructions to fulfilling their basic needs.

You're the one showing ignorance jumping to conclusions, there's an autistic child in my family and my grandmother is suffering from the late stages of dementia now, so to answer your question, no I wouldn't let her fly as she'd be a danger to herself and to other people.
The mother of this child showed a complete lack of control over her own child and due to that is trying to blame the airline on it, the child posed a safety threat on board and most likely the mother got irate due to the staff on board not being able to accomadate her request, as in all cases of irate passengers on board an aircraft they get offloaded regardless of their medical excuses. If the child got up and started kicking and screaming and scratching other passengers on the aircraft should they be let away with it due to autism? No they shouldn't, they are subject to the same rules as all other passengers

Tenger

Chloris wrote: »

So you're basing your understanding on two such incidents you witnessed a a bystander, with no other experience of dealing with people who have special needs? I work with special needs children and adults every day .....

I figuratively doff my hat to you.
However I merely mentioned 2 specific instances that happened on an aircraft. Which is the specific environment that this incident happened. Aircraft are not normal spaces and can upset and confuse many people.

Chloris wrote: »

It's all about prevention, and if they had any training they would have known that.

Its a huge ask that the airline's train their staff to deal with every possible medical/special needs issue they may encounter.

Chloris wrote: »

I'm not guessing you're the type of person who would hold a door open for somebody in a wheelchair...

Now who is being ignorant? Holding a door open is simple manners. I do it for anyone.

Chloris wrote: »

if you think obliging a request for a meal for a girl who has autism is going above and beyond, it just shows the glaring ignorance of people who would rather have them hidden away rather than accept and facilitate them to make their lives that bit easier.

I didn't express the opinion that it was "above and beyond" I stated that the cabin crew were following company policy at first and then changed their decision.

Chloris wrote: »

You're right, the mother should have had the foresight. But she didn't deserve the indignity of being thrown off a plane. They didn't cause a scene, from what I can tell.

Well I read the same article and it sounded like the mother threatened the staff rather than ask for help.

Chloris wrote: »

She simply made a reasonable request and it was denied, creating the risk of a 'meltdown' which wasn't necessary.

Again, aircraft are not normal spaces, what if there was no more hot food, or not at all? The request may be reasonable in a restaurant, but aircraft do not have unlimited supplies of food, some don't even have ovens.

Chloris wrote: »

We're obviously talking about people who have severe neurological issues being accompanied. The lady with dementia was also certainly not in the wrong in that situation.

Do I say that.....did you miss that part where I mentioned that her son should be punished for the mental distress he caused to his mother?

Chloris wrote: »

Now you're just making wild conjectures. They did have the food and instead of simply telling her they'd have to charge her extra, they withheld it.

Not really, I am familiar with the stratification of pax on US airlines. I am also passingly familiar with their onboard service. My last internal US flight was 6 hours long (BOS-SFO with Jetblue) and there was no hot food, unlimited snacks and drinks...but no hot food. This was a United flight which has Business class so there was hot food loaded for the Business Class passengers.
The cabin staff followed procedure and then changed their response to resolve the situation.


This is not a nice event, I'm sure many involved with be upset about it, the article even mentioned the other pax asking for the family to be kept onboard.(fair play to them) However the unfortunate tendency of US authorities to over react to certain has blown what was a defused distressful situation for a young girl into a media storm.

Calhoun

Of course the airline was well within their right to kick them off the flight. Depending on where the child is on the spectrum and the education they have had they could be violent which is not ideal on a plane.

The parents should have been prepared and taken the necessary steps to ensure they could deal with their daughter on the plane. As has been pointed out the pilot wouldn't make a decision like he did lightly so there is definitely more to it.

Chloris

So I'm going to answer that first sentence in two parts as they are clearly unrelated to reach other.

billie1b wrote:

You're the one showing ignorance jumping to conclusions, there's an autistic child in my family and my grandmother is suffering from the late stages of dementia now

I'm sorry for your grandmother's trouble. The autistic child in your family's parents might feel differently about your detached perspective if they needed to travel by airplane. Your proposed blanket ban on air travel for autistic people would have meant my younger brother wouldn't have been able to travel to a specialist neurological clinic in the UK for essential treatment. Seeing as we're playing the family guilt trip cards so early. Thanks for that.

so to answer your question, no I wouldn't let her fly as she'd be a danger to herself and to other people.

You've drawn this conclusion that she's a danger with no reference to anything except your earlier reference to one unrelated autistic person that you know.

The mother of this child showed a complete lack of control over her own child

If anything, the mother showed predictive skills which show that she is the best person to make decisions for her children.

...and... is trying to blame the airline on it, the child posed a safety threat on board and most likely the mother got irate due to the staff on board not being able to accomadate her request, as in all cases of irate passengers on board an aircraft they get offloaded regardless of their medical excuses.

More complete speculation. She blamed it on the airline because they were the ones who removed her and her daughter from the aircraft (obviously?).

[b/]If[/b] the child got up and started kicking and screaming and scratching other passengers on the aircraft should they be let away with it due to autism? No they shouldn't, they are subject to the same rules as all other passengers

She didn't do any of that. You're just making things up now.

moc moc a moc

Chloris wrote: »

Do you think people with dementia shouldn't be allowed to fly either?

Yes.

As anyone sensible would.

smurfjed

Is it too much to ask for the mother to bring a prepared meal with her and ask for it to be heated up? Same as parents do with milk and formula?

Gone Drinking

Chloris, I think you're misinterpreting some of the comments people have made. Given some of your comments, you seem to be taking personal offence to some of the opinions also.

We're just having a conversation, getting different views etc. No ones "out to get" autistic people here.

Tenger

Chloris wrote: »

......
She didn't do any of that. You're just making things up now.

http://wbay.com/2015/05/11/family-of-autistic-teen-told-to-leave-plane/

3 points of view below:
-Donna Beegle noticed a telltale sign from her daughter. She needed a hot meal, and Beegle offered to buy one from First Class......she explained that if her daughter didn’t get a hot meal, she would “get to the meltdown point” and maybe scratch someone. Juliette soon got a first-class meal.

-“The child would make noise every now and then, no louder than, say, a baby crying,” Hall told KOIN 6 News. “I don’t think they should have landed a plane for her being fussy.”

-....Hedlund said Juliette had been “howling” before the incident and the flight attendants had been working quietly with the family for nearly an hour before the pilot made the decision to make an emergency landing.
“There was a lot of howling, and we thought well, what’s going on? And it never stopped,” Hedlund said.
“She wasn’t put off the plane because she had autism, she was put off the plane because she was maybe proposing some kind of a threat, to (about) 170 other people at 36,000 feet, which doesn’t make anyone feel safe,” Hedlund said. “What if she got crazy and got up and opened an exit door at 36,000 feet?”




As I stated already, this is not a nice situation, but aircraft are not normal spaces. They have certain procedures in place that make some behaviours not permitted.

billie1b

Chloris wrote: »

So I'm going to answer that first sentence in two parts as they are clearly unrelated to reach other.

I'm sorry for your grandmother's trouble. The autistic child in your family's parents might feel differently about your detached perspective if they needed to travel by airplane. Your proposed blanket ban on air travel for autistic people would have meant my younger brother wouldn't have been able to travel to a specialist neurological clinic in the UK for essential treatment. Seeing as we're playing the family guilt trip cards so early. Thanks for that.


You've drawn this conclusion that she's a danger with no reference to anything except your earlier reference to one unrelated autistic person that you know.


If anything, the mother showed predictive skills which show that she is the best person to make decisions for her children.


More complete speculation. She blamed it on the airline because they were the ones who removed her and her daughter from the aircraft (obviously?).


She didn't do any of that. You're just making things up now.

I wasn't playing the guilt trip, just showing you that its not as rare as you're making it out to be.
I never proposed a blanket ban on autistic children travelling, I said if an autistic or any person who gets irate on a plane and poses a danger they should be subject to the same rules as everyone else. Ive had autistic people travel on my aircraft with no problems at all.
The mother didn't show predictive skills, she showed a complete lack of control, she should have been able to control her autistic child even if she didn't get her request, just like most other parents of autistic children.
The airline removed the mother and her daughter for posing a risk, its not the airlines fault, its the mothers fault.
And I wasn't making things up, I said 'if' the child had of done those things not that she 'did do' those things.

SeaBreezes

As the mum of an Autistic Young Man, reading the article I am appalled. Time and time again I see people on the spectrum being discriminated against due to the fact their disability is not 'visible'

The child in question did not 'act' up or in fact threaten anyone on board.

A hot meal is a small thing to ask to alleviate the distress of a disabled person.


I hope they sue, and I hope they make a fortune.

smurfjed

Don't you have personal responsibility for your child? If you have special requests then ask for them prior to the flight.

SeaBreezes

Going by that logic , we should kick all babies off flights as well, for making too much noise?

The child did nothing, wasnt out of her seat, wasnt violent, wasnt trying to open any doors, was simply verbalising her discomfort at not eating a hot meal as best she could.

The rest was the imagination of the pilot and passengers, of what she was capable of... none of which she actually did..

Thought we had left that kind of crap behind in the last century...

Chloris

Tenger wrote:

I figuratively doff my hat to you. However I merely mentioned 2 specific instances that happened on an aircraft. Which is the specific environment that this incident happened. Aircraft are not normal spaces and can upset and confuse many people.

Tenger wrote:

Its a huge ask that the airline's train their staff to deal with every possible medical/special needs issue they may encounter.

It's probably worth looking into how commonplace this disability is becoming.

Tenger wrote:

Well I read the same article and it sounded like the mother threatened the staff rather than ask for help.

It didn't sound like that. In a high stress situation like being refused a basic request for your disabled child, it would have been necessary for her to convey the gravity of the situation and request that help her to prevent a possible problem.

Tenger wrote:

Again, aircraft are not normal spaces, what if there was no more hot food, or not at all? The request may be reasonable in a restaurant, but aircraft do not have unlimited supplies of food, some don't even have ovens.

Look, I've admitted that it was an oversight on the part of the mother, and the point is that this airplane DID have food.

Tenger wrote:

Do I say that.....did you miss that part where I mentioned that her son should be punished for the mental distress he caused to his mother?

Why punish her as well then by preventing her from ever flying? She could be a model passenger if accompanied by a carer and if the airline was willing to facilitate her requests to the best of their abilities.

Tenger wrote:

Not really, I am familiar with the stratification of pax on US airlines. The cabin staff followed procedure and then changed their response to resolve the situation.

There was no situation. They changed their response from "being obstructive and unhelpful" to "kicking her off the plane".

Tenger wrote:

This is not a nice event, I'm sure many involved with be upset about it, the article even mentioned the other pax asking for the family to be kept onboard.(fair play to them) However the unfortunate tendency of US authorities to over react to certain has blown what was a defused distressful situation for a young girl into a media storm.

I'm glad of that, because it will hopefully create awareness of the need to oblige people who have disabilities. Imagine not being able to articulate that you are hungry, or uncomfortable in another way. Now imagine protocol blocked you from being able to access the thing to alleviate your hunger or discomfort. The rules need to change to reflect the increasing number of people who are living with autism, to enable them to function in society more easily.

Tenger wrote:

I didn't express the opinion that it was "above and beyond" I stated that the cabin crew were following company policy at first and then changed their decision.

Company policy resulted in the prevailing attitude of "out of sight, out of mind" winning over. Maybe we should just institutionalise and drug them all so you all don't have to be offended by them. God forbid any of you or any of your children ever suffer neurological trauma, I hope you're not all maligned and ostracised as you want these people to be.

SeaBreezes

billie1b wrote: »

I wasn't playing the guilt trip, just showing you that its not as rare as you're making it out to be.
I never proposed a blanket ban on autistic children travelling, I said if an autistic or any person who gets irate on a plane and poses a danger they should be subject to the same rules as everyone else. Ive had autistic people travel on my aircraft with no problems at all.
The mother didn't show predictive skills, she showed a complete lack of control, she should have been able to control her autistic child even if she didn't get her request, just like most other parents of autistic children.
The airline removed the mother and her daughter for posing a risk, its not the airlines fault, its the mothers fault.
And I wasn't making things up, I said 'if' the child had of done those things not that she 'did do' those things.

Actually it IS the Airlines fault... NO-ONE gets a plane diverted and kicked off, for what they MIGHT do... Usually, it is as a result of what they HAVE done. Unless you have Autism apparently, then you can be kicked off depending on how vivid the pilots imagination is... when you have done nothing other than be a little loud...

Have never posted in this forum before but I had to now.

As a parent, it is my duty to ensure that I have everything required when taking my child on a flight. Bottles, nappies, wipes, medicine. If I require special assistance, I will call ahead before booking and make sure my child's needs could be accommodated.

If the airline could meet my needs when I called but declined to, that would be discrimination. If I left these issues till I was on a flight, not knowing whether my child's special needs could be catered for, then tgat would be bad parenting on my part.

It must be pretty tough raising an autistic child but that's no excuse for travelling unprepared.

SeaBreezes

Strawberry Milkshake wrote: »

Have never posted in this forum before but I had to now.

As a parent, it is my duty to ensure that I have everything required when taking my child on a flight. Bottles, nappies, wipes, medicine. If I require special assistance, I will call ahead before booking and make sure my child's needs could be accommodated.

If the airline could meet my needs when I called but declined to, that would be discrimination. If I left these issues till I was on a flight, not knowing whether my child's special needs could be catered for, then tgat would be bad parenting on my part.

It must be pretty tough raising an autistic child but that's no excuse for travelling unprepared.

And we're all assuming she was unprepared, but WAS she? Maybe she did have a warm meal in a thermos, but the flight was delayed? Maybe shes travelled countless times before, and the child didnt want a meal, but this one smelled good, and she was determined to have one? Maybe her mum had snacks, and the child wouldnt take them.

What if it was a child in a wheelchair? What if they needed to use the first class toilets or they'd wee on the person next to them, would they be allowed to use them or would they be told to wee in the chair?

The child has a disability. She was for some reason in distress. (And maybe this is the first time this has ever happened) you cannot prepare for every single possible eventuality. The mum KNOWs her child and knows the quickest way to relieve her distress is a hot meal.

And they refused to give it to her. Then they landed the plane and kicked her off.

Unforgiveable.

Lots of maybes there which were never mentioned in the article.

Wheelchair? You call ahead with your request. As I said, prepare for your travels.

billie1b

SeaBreezes wrote: »

Actually it IS the Airlines fault... NO-ONE gets a plane diverted and kicked off, for what they MIGHT do... Usually, it is as a result of what they HAVE done. Unless you have Autism apparently, then you can be kicked off depending on how vivid the pilots imagination is... when you have done nothing other than be a little loud...

Loud passengers are put off planes everyday around the world, not just loud autistic passengers, this story is just getting attention cause the mother is trying to gain the sympathy support.

Chloris

See the graph. I'm not saying it's uncommon, I'm saying that people like to pretend that it is, they like to suggest that the disabled people should have to make sure that they're out of the way, seen and not heard. Perpetuating the mistreatment and lack of understanding around disability is not socially responsible. They have the right to be in public as much as anyone else.

I never proposed a blanket ban on autistic children travelling, I said if an autistic or any person who gets irate on a plane and poses a danger they should be subject to the same rules as everyone else.

With that kind of attitude, we wouldn't have disabled toilets, parking spaces or ramps. If they're not being provided for, there's a risk of problems occurring. I've repeatedly said that the mother should have made some plans to get her daughter the meal. But the rules sometimes need to change to facilitate people with disabilities, and if you don't think they deserve that then you're part of the problem.

Ive had autistic people travel on my aircraft with no problems at all. The mother didn't show predictive skills, she showed a complete lack of control, she should have been able to control her autistic child even if she didn't get her request, just like most other parents of autistic children.

See this is where it's obvious that you've never cared for an autistic child. They can require something so small, like a clothes peg or a biscuit, and not be able to articulate why they're upset. Usually their behaviours are predictable and can be prevented before they occur. The airline were stopping her from taking the necessary measures to prevent the behaviour.

Tenger wrote:

-....Hedlund said Juliette had been “howling” before the incident and the flight attendants had been working quietly with the family for nearly an hour before the pilot made the decision to make an emergency landing. “There was a lot of howling, and we thought well, what’s going on? And it never stopped,” Hedlund said. “She wasn’t put off the plane because she had autism, she was put off the plane because she was maybe proposing some kind of a threat, to (about) 170 other people at 36,000 feet, which doesn’t make anyone feel safe,” Hedlund said. “What if she got crazy and got up and opened an exit door at 36,000 feet?”

Surely there are safety considerations on board an aircraft to stop just anyone being able to get up and open the door.

Though this does suggest that she was more agitated than the previous articles suggested. I'd like to know if that was before or after she had the meal.

Gone Drinking wrote:

Chloris, I think you're misinterpreting some of the comments people have made. Given some of your comments, you seem to be taking personal offence to some of the opinions also.

Yeah, it's a personal issue to me. I chose a career where I worked with people who have disabilities so that I could spend my life making life better for them. That's why I'm explaining, as a professional in the field of disability, why the airline acted unacceptably.

I also find it incredulous that so many people think it's completely fine to suggest that we should refuse to oblige people with disabilities and then get rid of them out of sight.

SeaBreezes wrote:

Thought we had left that kind of crap behind in the last century...

Exactly this.

SeaBreezes

billie1b wrote: »

Loud passengers are put off planes everyday around the world, not just loud autistic passengers, this story is just getting attention cause the mother is trying to gain the sympathy support.

She already has it. :-) and I hope she makes a fortune
The treatment of that child was unforgiveable.

billie1b

Chloris wrote: »

See this is where it's obvious that you've never cared for an autistic child. They can require something so small, like a clothes peg or a biscuit, and not be able to articulate why they're upset. Usually their behaviours are predictable and can be prevented before they occur. The airline were stopping her from taking the necessary measures to prevent the behaviour.

See this is your assumptions and ignorance again making a generalised starement like that.
My daugter was in my mothers house one day playing with 12 coloured clothes pegs and a small bucket, when it was time to tidy up and leave she had an almighty meltdown loud enough that the neighbour knocked in, it took twenty minutes to calm her down and get relaxed again from that episode, if I had of been on a plane with her and the crew were trying to help for an hour to difuse the situation id understand the decision by the captain to divert. You're not the be all and end all of autism, neither am I and its also very close to me as pointed out above but I look at it from both sides not just one.

Gone Drinking

Legally I don't think they have a leg to stand on, compensation wise. However, given the media spotlight they'll probably be offered a settlement by the airline to smooth things over.

I think tangen is right, there were some mistakes made on both sides. The article is also highlighting the controversy rather than the facts, given the statementa of some of the other passengera that were posted.

moc moc a moc

SeaBreezes wrote: »

Time and time again I see people on the spectrum being discriminated against due to the fact their disability is not 'visible'

It was pretty audible in this case, by all accounts.

SeaBreezes wrote: »

Going by that logic , we should kick all babies off flights as well, for making too much noise?

I certainly wouldn't have a problem with that, and I bet many others wouldn't either. At very least we should have a separate section at one end of the plane to spare the majority of passengers from the people bringing their mewling spawn on unnecessary voyages.

Chloris wrote: »

With that kind of attitude, we wouldn't have disabled toilets, parking spaces or ramps.

None of these exist on any plane I've ever been on. And this is an important point: you seem to keep forgetting that this person was causing fear and disruption on a constrictive metal tube flying through the air, not just out in some restaurant or shopping centre or what have you.

Chloris

billie1b wrote:

See this is your assumptions and ignorance again making a generalised starement like that. My daugter was in my mothers house one day playing with 12 coloured clothes pegs and a small bucket, when it was time to tidy up and leave she had an almighty meltdown loud enough that the neighbour knocked in, it took twenty minutes to calm her down and get relaxed again from that episode, if I had of been on a plane with her and the crew were trying to help for an hour to difuse the situation id understand the decision by the captain to divert. You're not the be all and end all of autism, neither am I and its also very close to me as pointed out above but I look at it from both sides not just one.

I never said that I was "the be all and end all of autism", that's more bloody conjecture there. I'm a trained professional who knows how to deal with autistic people. Repetition, habit and prediction are key to preventing these types of incident. Maybe it wouldn't be suitable for that child to go on a plane, I would have to see reports and records of their behaviour. We're talking about an incident where a parent made a simple mistake, attempted to rectify it and was vilified by the airline.

moc moc a moc wrote:

I certainly wouldn't have a problem with that, and I bet many others wouldn't either. At very least we should have a separate section at one end of the plane to spare the majority of passengers from the people bringing their mewling spawn on unnecessary voyages.

Everything else you say is diminished in value because you refer to children as "mewling spawn". Not everything exists to convenience the likes of you.

moc moc a moc wrote:

None of these exist on any plane I've ever been on. And this is an important point: you seem to keep forgetting that this person was causing disruption on a thin metal tube flying through the air, not just out in some restaurant or cinema on land.

Oh right, so we'll accommodate them in some circumstances and not others. We'll make a list of every conceivable scenario and decide where we'll prevent them from being. Or we could just instate measures to make the environment appropriate for them.

SeaBreezes

moc moc a moc wrote: »

It was pretty audible in this case, by all accounts.



I certainly wouldn't have a problem with that, and I bet many others wouldn't either. At very least we should have a separate section at one end of the plane to spare the majority of passengers from the people bringing their mewling spawn on unnecessary voyages.



None of these exist on any plane I've ever been on. And this is an important point: you seem to keep forgetting that this person was causing fear and disruption on a constrictive metal tube flying through the air, not just out in some restaurant or shopping centre or what have you.

All she asked for was a hot meal. Seriously lads. Its not much to ask for, to put a disabled person out of their distress.

Fear and disruption, how? She never left her seat and just verbalised her discomfort occasionally, like a baby might.

The other passengers actually objected to her being REMOVED from the plane, and asked that she be allowed to stay once they realised what was going on.

I dont think the Airline has a leg to stand on to be honest, discrimination in all forms should never be tolerated.

Gone Drinking

SeaBreezes wrote: »

All she asked for was a hot meal. Seriously lads. Its not much to ask for, to put a disabled person out of their distress.

Fear and disruption, how? She never left her seat and just verbalised her discomfort occasionally, like a baby might.

The other passengers actually objected to her being REMOVED from the plane, and asked that she be allowed to stay once they realised what was going on.

I dont think the Airline has a leg to stand on to be honest, discrimination in all forms should never be tolerated.

She got the hot meal, it didn't help. staff worked with the child and family for an hour but the child was still unhappy according to witness statements

There comes a point when the pilots/crew need to think about the several hour flight ahead, the crew and the people on board.

I can't see how this is discrimination? It's not like the pilot landed the minute he heard there was an austistic person on board.

SeaBreezes

Gone Drinking wrote: »

Legally I don't think they have a leg to stand on, compensation wise. However, given the media spotlight they'll probably be offered a settlement by the airline to smooth things over.

I think tangen is right, there were some mistakes made on both sides. The article is also highlighting the controversy rather than the facts, given the statementa of some of the other passengera that were posted.

I disagree, I think its ALL the Airlines fault.

Even the passengers on the flight recording the child being kicked off are shocked, and immediately say.. 'Thats a lawsuit right there'..
THEY dont believe she should be kicked off, or that the Airline is justified in doing so.. and they were there for the entire 'situation'.

The Airline will be sued, and rightly so.
Discrimination should never be tolerated.

Gone Drinking

SeaBreezes wrote: »

I disagree, I think its ALL the Airlines fault.

Even the passengers on the flight recording the child being kicked off are shocked, and immediately say.. 'Thats a lawsuit right there'..
THEY dont believe she should be kicked off, or that the Airline is justified in doing so.. and they were there for the entire 'situation'.

The Airline will be sued, and rightly so.
Discrimination should never be tolerated.

You're hardly going to get people standing up and applauding or saying 'good decision' for the family being removed but I bet there were plenty who agreed with the decision.

Just because a few passengers agreed with the family does not mean they legally have any leg to stand on. The airline will have rules and proceedures that you agree to when booking a flight, if they're not adhered too, you can be removed.. end of. Doesn't make a diffefence if you're deaf, blind, Irish, chinese, disabled or whatever.

I don't mean to sound unsympathetic, I'm talking about legal stuff. I obviously feel for the family and the situation they were in.

FWVT

Chloris, you might be qualified to work with autistic children, but your arrogance, ignorance and misrepresentations shown here are plain for all to see.

The mother caused this whole affair in the first place.

“She started getting a little upset and I started thinking, ‘You know what? She didn’t eat her dinner,” the mother said. “I know her, when she gets over hungry or over thirsty, she really struggles because she can’t tell us and she gets really frustrated.”

So she knows her daughter, yet allowed her to get to stage where she was hungry, knowing full well that this could cause a problem, especially on a plane. She couldn't buy her a hot meal in the airport to eliminate this risk? As a professional carer, what would you say to the mother about this?

How you think that air crews should be trained to deal with autism is just ridiculous. You got at least a Fetac Level 5 in Childcare to be allowed work with autistic children (correct?), so to expect crews to have similar training is crazy. Anything less and they will not be "trained".

The captain was within his rights to put the safety of his flight first. After the warnings given by the mother earlier, just because the girl was sitting quietly when the authorities came on board was no guarantee that she would remain that way and not cause harm to someone (to quote the mother).

SeaBreezes

Gone Drinking wrote: »

You're hardly going to get people standing up and applauding or saying 'good decision' for the family being removed but I bet there were plenty who agreed with the decision.

Just because a few passengers agreed with the family does not mean they legally have any leg to stand on. The airline will have rules and proceedures that you agree to when booking a flight, if they're not adhered too, you can be removed.. end of. Doesn't make a diffefence if you're deaf, blind, Irish, chinese, disabled or whatever.

I don't mean to sound unsympathetic, I'm talking about legal stuff. I obviously feel for the family and the situation they were in.

Which takes me back to my first point. The child didnt DO anything. It is the pilots imagination that is at fault here. The mother simply warned that if she had a meltdown there was a possibility of someone getting accidentally scratched. This could easily be averted by a hot meal. And it (eventually) was. Kicking her off the plane when she didnt DO anything, but the pilot is AFRAID of what she could possibly do because she has Autism, is discrimination. Repeat the last sentence and replace the word Autism with race/gender/culture/class and you have discrimination. Plain and simple

moc moc a moc

Chloris wrote: »

Everything else you say is diminished in value because you refer to children as "mewling spawn".

Incorrect. This is not After Hours; your brand of armchair psychology has no influence here.

SeaBreezes

FWVT wrote: »

Chloris, you might be qualified to work with autistic children, but your arrogance, ignorance and misrepresentations shown here are plain for all to see.

The mother caused this whole affair in the first place.



So she knows her daughter, yet allowed her to get to stage where she was hungry, knowing full well that this could cause a problem, especially on a plane. She couldn't buy her a hot meal in the airport to eliminate this risk? As a professional carer, what would you say to the mother about this?

How you think that air crews should be trained to deal with autism is just ridiculous. You got at least a Fetac Level 5 in Childcare to be allowed work with autistic children (correct?), so to expect crews to have similar training is crazy. Anything less and they will not be "trained".

The captain was within his rights to put the safety of his flight first. After the warnings given by the mother earlier, just because the girl was sitting quietly when the authorities came on board was no guarantee that she would remain that way and not cause harm to someone (to quote the mother).

Again, the child didnt DO anything... The mother emphasised the possibility of someone being scratched, which could be averted by a hot meal. And apparently she was right. But the pilot landed the plane and kicked them off? Because of what? A scratch? Seriously? The pilot kicked them off because she had Autism and he was afraid. That is discrimination.

Chloris

FWVT wrote:

The captain was within his rights to put the safety of his flight first. After the warnings given by the mother earlier, just because the girl was sitting quietly when the authorities came on board was no guarantee that she would remain that way and not cause harm to someone (to quote the mother).

FWVT wrote:

How you think that air crews should be trained to deal with autism is just ridiculous. You got at least a Fetac Level 5 in Childcare to be allowed work with autistic children (correct?), so to expect crews to have similar training is crazy. Anything less and they will not be "trained".

I'm a qualified primary school teacher, studying for a Masters in Intellectual Disability. I been professionally involved with disability for six years and before that, I took care of my younger brother who has a brain injury for ten years.

I'm obviously not saying they should make every person in the world become an expert in disability. I'm suggesting that airlines should have a policy where a trained member of staff is present and can make informed choices to facilitate people with disabilities when they are on board.

FWVT wrote:

So she knows her daughter, yet allowed her to get to stage where she was hungry, knowing full well that this could cause a problem, especially on a plane. She couldn't buy her a hot meal in the airport to eliminate this risk? As a professional carer, what would you say to the mother about this?

The mother knows her mistake, however you can't shift all of the blame to her. This entire thing has been a learning experience for everyone. What I hope is that measures will be put in place to prevent inconveniences like this for people with autism in future.

FWVT wrote:

The mother caused this whole affair in the first place.

The mother made a mistake in not ensuring her daughter had access to the hot meal she required, I have conceded that time and time again. The failure of the airline to facilitate her in that respect, after she had made the mistake, is the whole reason the situation escalated to the point where the flight was grounded. Even then, by the time the emergency services came she was sedate again and there was no more indignity necessary.

FWVT wrote:

Chloris, you might be qualified to work with autistic children, but your arrogance, ignorance and misrepresentations shown here are plain for all to see.

Your ad hominem attacks on my character are completely unwarranted. I have supported everything I said with facts. My "arrogance" stems from a wealth of experience in a field where you have to be constantly thinking ahead, prepared for any eventualities.