Fifteen years ago, phones didn’t even have a “flight mode” option. Back in 2014 for example, passengers were required to physically switch off their phones before takeoff — and flight attendants would check to ensure they were off. That was the rule, no exceptions.
Later, manufacturers introduced “flight mode,” a feature that allows you to use your phone offline while preventing it from sending or receiving signals. This development meant passengers could still work or entertain themselves in the air, without risking interference with the aircraft’s communication and navigational systems.
Different airlines handle this rule in slightly different ways. Some will allow you to keep your phone on flight mode once in the air, but still require it to be switched off completely during takeoff and landing. Others will simply tell you to switch to flight mode before departure and leave it that way for the entire journey.
Personally, I’ve flown both domestically and internationally and adapted my habits to match the rules. On long-haul flights, I use flight mode. On domestic flights — like those with Ibom Air — I switch my phone off entirely, because that’s the instruction. Flight attendants in such cases don’t appreciate seeing passengers fiddling with their phones during takeoff, because that’s precisely when compliance matters most.
Now, in the case that case of this disruptive Akwa Ibom girl, it appears the instruction was either to switch phones off or to place them in flight mode. The flight attendant’s role here was to ensure the passenger actually complied — and sometimes that means asking passengers to show their screens. If the crew member wasn’t convinced the passenger followed the rule, she had every reason to press the matter and insist.
Frankly, I find it highly unlikely that a trained flight attendant would pick on a compliant passenger out of spite. The far more plausible explanation is that the passenger’s own unruly, disruptive behaviour escalated the situation. And for those asking why the flight attendant stopped her from leaving the aircraft — the answer is simple: not complying with safety instructions can put the entire plane, and every life on board, at risk!
When the crew detects potential non-compliance, they cannot simply shrug and let you walk away. Their duty is to prevent risk, involve airport security, and ensure the matter is investigated. That’s exactly what happened here.
People defending this woman probably don’t understand the seriousness of air travel rules. In an aircraft, nobody — not even the pilot — can afford to take unnecessary risks. One malfunction or spark in the wrong place can be catastrophic. That’s why discipline and respect for instructions are non-negotiable.
If you cannot follow the safety procedures required to fly, you should probably choose another mode of transportation – go by bus and display your motor
park behaviour. On a plane, your actions affect everyone. Flying is stressful enough for many passengers without someone turning it into a safety incident.
This passenger got what she deserved — and her case should serve as a reminder: air travel works because everyone follows the rules. Ignore them, and you put over a hundred lives at risk.
I have no pity for her. Except I have heard her family say she has mental issues – maybe such people need to be accompanied. Because that’s the only way she’ll escape the life ban!
Ata Ikiddeh