SQ Pilot 'refused sick passenger's plea to land'

Status
Not open for further replies.
I guess we need to wait until this gets to court before Singapore Airlines will reply to the claims (and I can understand that for legal reasons) but surely the fact man was an award winning BBC Journalist and father of two has no real bearing on the story except for sensationalism, if the story as claimed happen to anyone it would be bad so why put the other stuff in, Just say a man and state his name and age.
 
Do they usually have those portable defibrillators on planes… if it got to the stage where his heart stopped? Though I’d imagine at that stage a diversion would be more likely to be considered.

VS were the first in 87 followed by QF (although most credit QF this is in fact incorrect) and then AA who put them on overwater flights, since 2004 they have been required on all big jets (excl commuter planes) in the US with more than 50 pax.

Interestingly Norman Swan recently had a bit on these and how they are not on codeshares :)

http://www.abc.net.au/rn/healthreport/stories/2011/3172504.htm
 
Once again we are flying blind(pun intended).
This happened in March.Only one side of the story.Not sure from report whether it was the fellow or the doctor who asked for the diversion-could be taken either way.
The Daily Mail report really seems to be having a dig at him-mentiong the value of his house.
Some of the comments on the Daily Mail article are true classics.
www.dailymail.co.uk/.../BBC-radio-presenter-Max-Pearson-endured-heart- attack-flight-pilot-refused-land.html
 
but surely the fact man was an award winning BBC Journalist and father of two has no real bearing on the story except for sensationalism, if the story as claimed happen to anyone it would be bad so why put the other stuff in, Just say a man and state his name and age.

Actually, that stuff is about stating the credibility of the passenger. If he was wearing thongs and a bluey, unemployed and on his way home from a V8 race; I'm sure you can see how some people might be more dismissive of his version of events.
 
Unfortunately, I think too much information is missing to be able to comment sensibly on the specifics of this case.

I think we can be pretty confident that it wasn't 14 hours of cardiac arrest, however!

This case will turn on the details. What symptoms did he have and when? What diagnostic equipment was available? What was the *actual* delay from continuing (and it's not the full length of the flight - it's the length of the flight MINUS the delay to landing at the nearest safe airport at a safe landing weight)? What were SQ's procedures, and were they followed?

It could go either way, depending on the details. It is certainly possible, given a certain set of facts, that SQ could be liable!
 
The Frequent Flyer Concierge team takes the hard work out of finding reward seat availability. Using their expert knowledge and specialised tools, they'll help you book a great trip that maximises the value for your points.

AFF Supporters can remove this and all advertisements

. If he was wearing thongs and a bluey, unemployed and on his way home from a V8 race; I'm sure you can see how some people might be more dismissive of his version of events.


This guy has way too may vascular risk factors to ignore!

:D

GT
 
Actually, that stuff is about stating the credibility of the passenger. If he was wearing thongs and a bluey, unemployed and on his way home from a V8 race; I'm sure you can see how some people might be more dismissive of his version of events.

I'd believe this guys version of events any day over a journo's! :p
 
...
Certainly, if I was in that situation I’d want them to land, but I’d also probably take the word of the attending doctor over my word, because after all, I’d expect a doctor to know more about what’s happening than me.

If there was no doctor, different story again, but if the airline didn’t cause the heart attack, I don’t see how they’re that responsible, he clearly couldn’t have seemed that sick if they didn’t divert.
...

many people with chronic conditions, or those that have had a heart-attack previously, would be in a good position to judge the seriousness of whatever is happening at the current time, perhaps better than a doctor without equipment to be able to perform an ECG etc.

Although one would assume the person would also tell the attending doctor 'i have one of these before' etc etc. Of course an unexpected heart-attack (in the sense that the patient was completely unaware of the possibility) would be something quite different.

In terms of the legal responsibility, there are many situations where person A is not responsible for causing the condition of person B, but person A is still responsible to provide aid and assistance in the event person B needs it. A school for example may not be responsible for something that happens to a student, but they are still required to seek care.

I would argue that [from a certain point in time] a duty of care exists between the airline and the passenger.
 
This is nowhere near as simple as some would like to present it.

Firstly, the passenger himself is not going to be making the call to divert or not. End of story there.

An A380, just after take off from Singapore (to London) would be roughly five hours away from being able to land. Fuel dump would take about an hour, but that still leaves you 50 tonnes above maximum landing weight. So, if you start dumping immediately, you could land in the middle of India (do you really want to be there) or perhaps Dubai. If the dump starts later, you actually end up having to go further before you can land....basically at the end of the dump you're always about 4-5 hours away from landing (at least if you want to be below MLW).

Yes, you can declare an emergency, and land above max weight, but the question is, of course, what emergency...there's nothing wrong with the aircraft, and doing so exposes all of the passengers, and the aircraft, to an unquantified extra level of risk.

Once it starts down the track, there are a surprisingly small number of airports available to it. Between Singapore and Europe, only Hyderbad and Dubai are readily useable. Others exist of course, but they're for the days when the aircraft needs to land immediately, not an individual passenger. In this respect, the A380 is much more limited than the 747.

The call to divert or not really rests with the captain. Of course, some airlines will pretty much take that out of his hands (although I don't know SQ's policies here). Medical on the aircraft is helpful, but is unlikely to be used to make the final call. Emergency medical advice, geared towards the needs of aviation, is available from a company in the USA (and there may be others), as long as your own company uses them. They make the call medically, but it still rests with the captain to make the final call. Would you go against them...well yes, you might. They will base their call on the medical situation, and upon the known medical facilities on the ground, but the overriding concern is always the safety of the aircraft, and all of the passengers. For instance, with a heart attack patient, if Manila were 100 miles away, and HK 500 miles, but Manila was in the throes of a typhoon, which call would you make?

In a 747 you could dump just about all of the fuel, but in an A380 you're always left with about 85 tonnes remaining (about 440 tonnes all up). This whole scenario is not simple. For instance, say we land overweight, but it goes a bit awry, and we end up off the far end of the runway...what about the duty of care to all of the other passengers?

What would I do? Well that answer is dynamic, and depends upon the advice I get from Medlink, the weather and other conditions relevant to my airport options, and of course, just how heavy the aircraft is.
 
Sponsored Post

Struggling to use your Frequent Flyer Points?

Frequent Flyer Concierge takes the hard work out of finding award availability and redeeming your frequent flyer or credit card points for flights.

Using their expert knowledge and specialised tools, the Frequent Flyer Concierge team at Frequent Flyer Concierge will help you book a great trip that maximises the value for your points.

jb747 as always your insights as a professional are very much valued on this forum, so thank you again for your comments.

From reading your post, the whole dynamics of the situation change quite a bit. If it were to take at least half the flight to dump enough fuel to land safely (i.e. dump/burn off the fuel, then find a place to land), then one could argue that it is possible that the SQ pilots did not make an error of judgement by flying the entire flight.

The non-technicals could argue that a human life is at risk and even if the plane did make a landing which would ground it, that's the action that should've been taken (although your mention of the safety risk to the remaining passengers is also well noted). Same thing by whether a pax whose life is potentially at risk should be "graded" on a scale of emergencies (i.e. some people will say "an emergency is an emergency" rather than, for example, an "emergency" which risks 1 passenger vs. another which risks the entire plane are two different kinds ("grades" if you will) of emergencies, of which either is treated / merited differently when evaluating whether to divert, and where).

From what it sounds - and I could be wrong - but a 388 may not have burnt enough fuel during the course of its normal flight to land before it arrives to LON? For example, if they had decided to land at FRA or perhaps earlier (assuming this is near its flight path), would enough fuel have been burnt by then to land safely? (One could argue that diverting to FRA may or may not be pointless given the proximity to LON, let alone the availability of landing slots, permissions to land as you alluded to (is it a real emergency) and ground services).

The other option is to keep circling around SIN area burning and dumping fuel before being able to land, however that's probably non-desirable since you might as well get part of the way there...
 
Thanks jb747, an insightful and educational post for the community as usual. It is very interesting that the realistic time to land is 5 hours from time of decision. This may make the case against SQ more difficult as it is probable that the patient would have had a worse outcome regardless of whether or not they had landed.
Again a bit of speculation on my part as I have no inside knowledge of that case
 
This is nowhere near as simple as some would like to present it.

Firstly, the passenger himself is not going to be making the call to divert or not. End of story there.

An A380, just after take off from Singapore (to London) would be roughly five hours away from being able to land. Fuel dump would take about an hour, but that still leaves you 50 tonnes above maximum landing weight. So, if you start dumping immediately, you could land in the middle of India (do you really want to be there) or perhaps Dubai. If the dump starts later, you actually end up having to go further before you can land....basically at the end of the dump you're always about 4-5 hours away from landing (at least if you want to be below MLW).

Thanks jb747 - I'm just a little confused... are you saying the A380 is 4-5 hours away from landing even if it dumps fuel? Or are you saying 4-5 hours would burn enough fuel under normal conditions (for it to be safe to land) and dumping fuel is an alternative?

In terms of other landing places Bangkok springs to mind. If the pax became ill shortly after leaving, let's say one hour, then that would allow a good hour or more fuel dump before reaching Bangkok (or longer if it circleut only if fuel dump is an alternative to the 4-5 hours.
 
My point is that these things just aren't black and white decisions. You could probably toss the problem at a dozen pilots and get back a dozen answers, and who is to say that any particular one is right or wrong.

Going to London, the aircraft drops below max landing weight (actually going anywhere) at about 3-4 hours to run to destination.

Basically though, you lose the ability to dump fuel at around 430 tonnes, and you need to get to 391 before you can land, so there is always a bit of a "no man's" land.
 
Thanks jb747 - I'm just a little confused... are you saying the A380 is 4-5 hours away from landing even if it dumps fuel?

Yes, that's exactly what I'm saying.

Max landing weight is 391 tonnes. Max take off weight is 569 tonnes (for ours, others may differ). You cannot dump all of the fuel, but only whatever is NOT in the feed tanks. Those tanks will always contain about 85 tonnes. Upshot is that at the END of the dump, you'll still weigh about 440 tonnes....about 50 tonnes over the max.

In terms of other landing places Bangkok springs to mind. If the pax became ill shortly after leaving, let's say one hour, then that would allow a good hour or more fuel dump before reaching Bangkok (or longer if it circleut only if fuel dump is an alternative to the 4-5 hours.
Well, an SQ flight isn't going to go to BKK if Singapore is an option. Makes no sense.
 
This is an interesting scenario, as I'd have thought that they would have landed in Dubai.

I've been on a 747 in the past when an engine failed during takeoff from Heathrow and we had to fly for 4-5 hours before landing again, and as I say that was a 747.

I also would have thought that an AED would have an ECG trace on it, so they may well have been able to detect a heart attack (not absolutely but quite possibly). And anyone having a heart attack - well as previous posters have said, there is a window of opportunity where the damage can be reversed / prevented. And also a risk of death if untreated.

So is the verdict that it is because it is an A380 that it would be harder (are A380's to be avoided if one is of a "heart attack" age?).

Interesting.

Sue
 
I think a doctor should reply to this thread, but here are my observations from a medical family background.

Bigger planes and longer hops and a fatter, weaker aging population will mean this will be more common in the future. The question to ask is does the plane carry a range of heart attack injections - on the fairly likely assumption there will at least be a doctor on board. (that they own up or want to be sued later) is another matter.

There is not a whole lot doctors can do when you have a heart attack.
For small ones they can give blood thinners and anti-inflammatories, and a test that takes about 5 hours to say 'oh you had one this size'. The needle will save heart tissue - but measured in 10's of minutes - after an hour - I doubt if there will be any difference - damage is done. The TV advertising 'Dont hesitate' is true. They want to give you TLC, just in case a clot dislodges and heads somewhere else (lung, brain etc).

For larger ones, doctors can make it harder for you to die with CPR and the like, but if the blockage is that severe, you probably will die anyway without threading tubes up arteries, cutting you open. Again, 1 hour, outcomes will be similar.

As stated they are MANY things that mimic heart pain. If they ask you to count fingers (and you pass) , and you remain conscious, and not going blue, and they can still hear a heartbeat - you may be in pain - but asking you to sit still and tight is probably all they can do. Because that magic injection may also harm you
1) Releasing blood clots.& do more damage 2) Prevent heart surgery should you really need it.

It sounds harsh, but sounds like SQ did the only responsible thing. When you fly, you accept these risks. So if you are in transit, and think something is up, act on it.
And when the airlines want to charge to $400 or so (KLM) record your conversations
because you think you have heart issues - then sue.
 
Because of some less-than-fantastic experiences, I'm not an A380 fan. And now there's further evidence, if an A380 is still above max landing weight for 4 to 5 hours even after a fuel dump!!

How on earth did the A380 ever get certified, if it can't dump sufficient fuel to allow it to land in a timely manner??
 
Because of some less-than-fantastic experiences, I'm not an A380 fan. And now there's further evidence, if an A380 is still above max landing weight for 4 to 5 hours even after a fuel dump!!

How on earth did the A380 ever get certified, if it can't dump sufficient fuel to allow it to land in a timely manner??

If you’ll re-read above, it can land after a fuel dump, but it then means a longer than usual turnaround for the aircraft as extra checks will need to be performed. I hardly see that being a design issue if you had to land for one sick pax… turn that around and look at the QF incident and they managed to land, though that aircraft isn’t in service yet for other reasons.

Someone has unrealistically high expectations.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top