4 ms·

What is hard for me to believe is that other passengers didn't immediately respond to the conflict. Post 9/11 I assumed US passengers would use if anything too

by rdl 9y ago

What is hard for me to believe is that other passengers didn't immediately respond to the conflict. Post 9/11 I assumed US passengers would use if anything too much force to respond to threats against the aircraft. While stuff like the UA fight club is happening too, once the aircraft is flying and something looks like it would either bring down the aircraft or cause a shoot down of the aircraft, a reasonable person would act to end a threat.

DeusExMachina 9y ago
This is a very common reaction called "bystander effect". (1) Cialdini explains it very well in his book "Influence". Despite thinking that we are perfectly logical, we often look at others and look for social proof to decide what the appropriate behavior for a situation is. So, when nobody is acting, we don't either. This is subconscious, it's not a rational decision. This lasts until we receive instructions on what to do, which allows us to break out of the effect. That is why in streets accidents, instead of asking for generic help, it is better to ask people to call an ambulance. I suspect that the passengers that intervened did so only after the attendant explicitly asked for help. And even after that, the effect was probably still so strong that most passengers stayed in their seats. (1) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bystander_effect https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bystander_effect
- toomuchtodo 9y ago
  This is why when an emergency is occurring, someone must assume command and delegate tasks. Not "someone call for help!" But point at someone and say "call for help now", point at someone else and say "do this action now". The more you know
  - odammit 9y ago
    They teach that in CPR training for the exact reason. Otherwise people just rubberneck to watch someone die. In this case the flight attendant should have said "You in seat 1A perform the eye gauge" Edit: s/stewardess/flight attendant Is stewardess "politically incorrect?"
    - rdl 9y ago
      I don't think there's anything wrong with calling a specific flight attendant who is female a stewardess. It's wrong to call the entire cabin crew "stewardesses" because there are some male (although not the majority), and thus it's gendering a job unfairly. Purser, steward, etc. are part of the actual titles on some airlines, as a type of rank/position. I'd care more about the individual upgrade to "flight attendant" vs. "steward/stewardess" based on level of professionalism if they were actually competent and professional, which is not particularly supported by the evidence on US domestic airlines. Flight attendant or cabin crew is more convenient to use when referring to groups, still. (Crew chief or loadmaster are the true professionals in this space...)
lobster_johnson 9y ago
Multiple passengers did involve themselves, and got hurt in the process. News articles don't say (it's not an important detail), but we may speculate that there were people on the sidelines who were waiting for an opportunity to enter the fray. But also, everyone involved seemed to be continually surprised about how difficult it was to get the guy under control. Personally I'm not sure that, if I were on that flight, I would've bothered if I saw that three or four people were already engaging. The bystander effect (aka "someone else's problem") isn't always completely illogical. It probably happened quite fast, too. As I understand it, happened in an area between bulkheads where there aren't any seats. The fight likely wasn't visible to everyone on board, and by the time enough people rose to engage, it might have been over. Again, just speculation. Lastly, there's also obviously a limit to the number of people who can engage in a fight in cramped airplane cabin.
- TheRealDunkirk 9y ago
  > an opportunity to enter the fray. I'm a fairly large guy, and prone to have jumped in the middle of this. I can only imagine how difficult it would have been to navigate the cramped seats and isles, where surely everyone was gawking and rubbernecking, just to get to the galley, where 2 small people have a hard time standing side-by-side, and help in the fight. Two people tussling in that space is about all it's going to allow, and the troublemaker was clearly on something I ain't on, to take a beating with a wine bottle, and keep fighting. There's just no good answer here, except for the pilot to ask, over the intercom, if there's a Jackie Chan on board.

by rdl 9y ago

DeusExMachina 9y ago

This is a very common reaction called "bystander effect". (1) Cialdini explains it very well in his book "Influence". Despite thinking that we are perfectly logical, we often look at others and look for social proof to decide what the appropriate behavior for a situation is. So, when nobody is acting, we don't either. This is subconscious, it's not a rational decision. This lasts until we receive instructions on what to do, which allows us to break out of the effect. That is why in streets accidents, instead of asking for generic help, it is better to ask people to call an ambulance. I suspect that the passengers that intervened did so only after the attendant explicitly asked for help. And even after that, the effect was probably still so strong that most passengers stayed in their seats. (1) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bystander_effect https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bystander_effect

toomuchtodo 9y ago
This is why when an emergency is occurring, someone must assume command and delegate tasks. Not "someone call for help!" But point at someone and say "call for help now", point at someone else and say "do this action now". The more you know
- odammit 9y ago
  They teach that in CPR training for the exact reason. Otherwise people just rubberneck to watch someone die. In this case the flight attendant should have said "You in seat 1A perform the eye gauge" Edit: s/stewardess/flight attendant Is stewardess "politically incorrect?"
  - rdl 9y ago
    I don't think there's anything wrong with calling a specific flight attendant who is female a stewardess. It's wrong to call the entire cabin crew "stewardesses" because there are some male (although not the majority), and thus it's gendering a job unfairly. Purser, steward, etc. are part of the actual titles on some airlines, as a type of rank/position. I'd care more about the individual upgrade to "flight attendant" vs. "steward/stewardess" based on level of professionalism if they were actually competent and professional, which is not particularly supported by the evidence on US domestic airlines. Flight attendant or cabin crew is more convenient to use when referring to groups, still. (Crew chief or loadmaster are the true professionals in this space...)

lobster_johnson 9y ago

Multiple passengers did involve themselves, and got hurt in the process. News articles don't say (it's not an important detail), but we may speculate that there were people on the sidelines who were waiting for an opportunity to enter the fray. But also, everyone involved seemed to be continually surprised about how difficult it was to get the guy under control. Personally I'm not sure that, if I were on that flight, I would've bothered if I saw that three or four people were already engaging. The bystander effect (aka "someone else's problem") isn't always completely illogical. It probably happened quite fast, too. As I understand it, happened in an area between bulkheads where there aren't any seats. The fight likely wasn't visible to everyone on board, and by the time enough people rose to engage, it might have been over. Again, just speculation. Lastly, there's also obviously a limit to the number of people who can engage in a fight in cramped airplane cabin.

TheRealDunkirk 9y ago
> an opportunity to enter the fray. I'm a fairly large guy, and prone to have jumped in the middle of this. I can only imagine how difficult it would have been to navigate the cramped seats and isles, where surely everyone was gawking and rubbernecking, just to get to the galley, where 2 small people have a hard time standing side-by-side, and help in the fight. Two people tussling in that space is about all it's going to allow, and the troublemaker was clearly on something I ain't on, to take a beating with a wine bottle, and keep fighting. There's just no good answer here, except for the pilot to ask, over the intercom, if there's a Jackie Chan on board.