There are different social actors (or “collective social actors”) in a disaster who may have differing ideas on the “ideal passenger in a disaster”.

This is an euphemism; it includes a gang of hijackers. Any suggested human failure in a complicated technical environment might be threatened or committed deliberately. Some attitudes of the ideal passenger, as seen from the point of view of the pirate, show that: i) the passenger ought to keep quiet, should not panic and should readily obey orders of the hijackers and must be easily persuaded by bullying tactics; and ii) the passenger must be selective in observing his situation —neither apparently looking at anybody nor recognizing anything, except to obey the commands he might receive from the hijackers.

This one did not want the disaster to happen, e.g., a rescue team. It also has an “ideal passenger” in mind: i) he should not panic, and should keep quiet, after having given a signal that he is alive and needs help; ii) he should follow orders and should place his trust in personnel; and iii) he should do his best to help himself and identify emergency situations in his co-passengers and help them. The moment rescuers arrive he has to change his role and follow orders.

This is the company operating the flight, as presented by the pilot and his crew: i) this party is interested in a quiet and non-panicking passenger; ii) expect him to follow their advice on trust; and iii) require him to take precautions seriously; i.e., reading the emergency regulations put in front of his seat, without unduly worrying about them, but remembering them when disaster strikes.