Swa - 1, Faa - Oops!

[swflyer]

Or, "Thank you SuperGirl, but I've got it!"


KCI police handcuff, detain FAA official
Apr. 02, 2005
By BILL GRAHAM The Kansas City Star

The Federal Aviation Administration is investigating an in-flight argument between a senior manager in its Kansas City office and a flight attendant.

Marion B. Dittman, the flight standards manager who oversees a four-state region, was handcuffed and detained by KCI Airport Police on March 26 after she stepped off a flight, according to a police report.

Efforts to reach Dittman, 62, of Parkville for comment were unsuccessful Friday, and several calls to her office and home were not returned.Dittman was not arrested in the incident, and no charges have been filed.

The flight standards office is responsible for enforcing FAA regulations and ensuring safety.

According to the report, a Southwest Airlines flight attendant told police that Dittman argued with him about a commotion in the back of the plane during an afternoon flight. The attendant told Dittman that he would handle the matter and that she should sit down because the captain had turned on the seat-belt sign.

Dittman then became verbally combative, the attendant told police, and while seated she shoved him in the lower chest area. He told Dittman that he could have her arrested when the flight landed, according to the report, and she replied, “No you won't,â€￾ and said she worked for the FAA.

Police officers met Dittman as she left the plane and told her she would be detained to provide a statement. She demanded to speak to the captain and flung her hands into the air, according to the report. Dittman was then handcuffed “due to her demeanor.â€￾

Transportation Security Administration investigators were called to the scene. The flight attendant told them that he would not pursue charges. Dittman was interviewed by federal agents and released.

Whitney Eichinger, a spokeswoman for Southwest Airlines, confirmed the incident but referred all questions to the FAA.

Tony Molinaro, an FAA spokesman based in Chicago, said no determination had been made about disciplinary action.

He said interference with flight-crew operations violated federal aviation law and was subject to a civil fine of up to $10,000.

 

[laura62]

Not only do we not get any respect from the passengers as far as complying with the regulations but we don't even get it from the people who make up the dog-gone regulations.

 

[justaumechanic]

Yeah.. Shame on the F/A for not pressing charges..

Remember, the FAA would hang you tomorrow if they get they chance
why show them any mercy??

The FAA Representative interfeared with a flight crew during flight.. If a passenger did it they would haul their ass off and throw them in jail.. Just because she works
for the FAA does not give her any special privlages..

The F/A should press Max charges and throw her in jail. The FAA should fire her and make an example out of her.. Pretty simple.. She is not above the law.

 

[WNrforlife]

Feds - what a bunch of nimrods

 

[Winglet]

I don't see how the flight attendant could make the determination of whether to press charges or not. Wouldn't a report be made and a federal attorney decide if charges were warranted? If the stories were correct, it sounds as if there was plenty of cause and evidence to press charges.

Sounds like SWA worked to give this "lady" a pass to gain favor with the FAA.

 

[mweiss]

Sounds like SWA worked to give this "lady" a pass to gain favor with the FAA.

[post="260336"][/post]​

Unless you know more about this than was made publicly available, I don't see how you can draw such a conclusion.

 

[hp_fa]

Think of the poor F/A facing the decision to either ignore the incident or to have the police meet the plane. Since it is FAA you don't want to get them too riled up, bit if you ignore it the "lady" in question could fine you for not having done your job. Not a happy situation in which to be.

FWIW, I would have also had the plane met by police. If I am gonna catch hell, I'd rather be able to say I was following proper procedure then be in a non-defensive position.

BTW, I am assuming that the FA not pressing charges hadto do with the personal assault on him, not the charge of interference with flight crew. I think the FAA and FBI have jurisdiction on that and make their decisions based on the reports, not the wishes of the F/A.

 

[swflyer]

BTW, I am assuming that the FA not pressing charges hadto do with the personal assault on him, not the charge of interference with flight crew. I think the FAA and FBI have jurisdiction on that and make their decisions based on the reports, not the wishes of the F/A.

[post="260479"][/post]​

Thanks, HP! This is correct.

The male f/a decided that the 62 y.o. FAA employee didn't hurt him, so while "assault" by definition did happen, charges were the discretion of the "assaulted".

The Federal charge of "interfering w/flight crew" is still an open matter, and in the hands of the Feds.

 

[N924PS]

Thanks, HP! This is correct.

The male f/a decided that the 62 y.o. FAA employee didn't hurt him, so while "assault" by definition did happen, charges were the discretion of the "assaulted".

The Federal charge of "interfering w/flight crew" is still an open matter, and in the hands of the Feds.

[post="260613"][/post]​

The way I see it, the FAA kind of looks the other way with respect to the way WN operates. In fact due to the "Southwest Effect" certain ATC facilities are known to show favoritism to WN flights when it comes to sequencing aircraft for departure or arrival.

Operationally, I have personally witnessed WN aircraft at excessive taxi speeds and operating on the edge. Their good PR department has kept a lot of incidents out of the press. Except for the time they went off airport at BUR in search of cheaper gas.

Perhaps the FAA Inspector was performing a Cabin Enroute inspection as a "ghost rider" observing cabin safety procedures.

Maybe the FAA Inspector in question was slightly out of line. Maybe the Flight Attendant in question was too. Probably not a good idea to piss off the Feds, even if you are Southwest Airlines. Watch out for more surveillance from the MCI FSDO.

 

[KCFlyer]

The way I see it, the FAA kind of looks the other way with respect to the way WN operates. In fact due to the "Southwest Effect" certain ATC facilities are known to show favoritism to WN flights when it comes to sequencing aircraft for departure or arrival.

Operationally, I have personally witnessed WN aircraft at excessive taxi speeds and operating on the edge. Their good PR department has kept a lot of incidents out of the press. Except for the time they went off airport at BUR in search of cheaper gas.

Perhaps the FAA Inspector was performing a Cabin Enroute inspection as a "ghost rider" observing cabin safety procedures.

Maybe the FAA Inspector in question was slightly out of line. Maybe the Flight Attendant in question was too. Probably not a good idea to piss off the Feds, even if you are Southwest Airlines. Watch out for more surveillance from the MCI FSDO.

[post="262296"][/post]​

I don't think the PR department of any airline can keep anything out of the press. If a plane taxis by faster than you feel is "normal", it doesn't make for real exciting news with film at 11.