14 Mar 07
Originally posted by stockenLittle bit of a knee jerk reaction don't you think.
Yesterday I read in the papers about a 35 year old woman who died on
the plane back home from Thailand. She felt sick and fainted after
having vomited in the toilet. The stewardess asked for a Doctor and got
a doc. and two nurses. The doctor soon realised that it was serious and
asked the pilot to land on the nearest available airport. The pilot came ...[text shortened]... clearly pointed out. 😕
http://www.aftonbladet.se/vss/nyheter/story/0,2789,1018840,00.html
15 Mar 07
2 edits
Originally posted by Sam The ShamHeh, heh, heh... Now, let's see. Where in these forums have I seen just
yeah these guys are clueless, talking out their rears about stuff they're ignorant about.
such guys? Hmm... 😵
We're having a debate here, and all we have to go on is what was written
in that article. What happened in real life is irrelevant to the debate at
hand, only the information we have, which is that the pilot refused to
land the plane so the woman could receive hospital care. The pilot never
explained himself, saying there are no suitable airports to land but just
kept the course. We can assume one of two things: 1) The captain is an
arrogant fog who didn't care to inform the Doctor (!) about why he
couldn't land, or 2) the captain is an arrogant fog who couldn't look the
Doctor (!) in the eye and say it like it is; that he's an arrogant fog who
didn't believe the woman was in any real danger but would live 'til they
reached the destination.
In either case we can say for sure that the captain is an arrogant fog.
Case closed. Now, can we pleeaaaase hang him? I'm losing my
patience here. 😴
15 Mar 07
Originally posted by spruce112358It was a joke, calm down! I fully agree with you (see my previous posts).
Suppose the pilot has been told (it's a charter company, remember) that making an emergency landing gets him fired with the landing fees deducted from his salary?
Still want to hang him?
15 Mar 07
3 edits
Originally posted by stockenActually, the story tells us almost nothing, it only states that a woman had a heart attack in flight and died after an emergency landing in Moscow. It certainly doesn't say the pilot "refused to land" or anything else of that nature. You seem to be filling in all the blanks with a lot of assumptions. Why don't you just keep us posted on whatever follow-up there is, if the pilot really did something wrong it will come out. My guess is the reason there hasn't been anything else about it in the news is because the flight crew followed correct procedure. Arguing about what the pilot should have done with the meager facts we have on hand would be ignorant.
Heh, heh, heh... Now, let's see. Where in these forums have I seen just
such guys? Hmm... 😵
We're having a debate here, and all we have to go on is what was written
in that article. What happened in real life is irrelevant to the debate at
hand, only the information we have, which is that the pilot refused to
land the plane so the woman could rec
Case closed. Now, can we pleeaaaase hang him? I'm losing my
patience here. 😴
15 Mar 07
Originally posted by UbersuckThe Swedish article is a lot more detailed than the English one. Most of what stocken said (as well as the detail about the ambulance I posted earlier) is directly from the article.
Actually, the story tells us almost nothing, it only states that a woman had a heart attack in flight and died after an emergency landing in Moscow. It certainly doesn't say the pilot "refused to land" or anything else of that nature. You seem to be filling in all the blanks with a lot of assumptions.
15 Mar 07
1 edit
Originally posted by NordlysThat single article is over a week old, and nothing else has been in the news since? No one else has been claiming anything of the sort. NO ONE? I've tried to find other articles about it in a key word search, come up with nothing.
The Swedish article is a lot more detailed than the English one. Most of what stocken said (as well as the detail about the ambulance I posted earlier) is directly from the article.
That alone makes my spider senses tingle. I think it's a case of bad journalism.
15 Mar 07
Originally posted by slimjimI agree.
Little bit of a knee jerk reaction don't you think.
Just a few thoughts for the stockmeister:-
What would the available facilities have been like at the airports that were on route where they could have landed at prior to flying for five hours to reach Moscow?
What would have happened if they had chosen one of those potential alternate airports to have made this unexpected unscheduled stop? Say there was an airstrip big enough to land this bit of tin, what was the likelyhood of the woman then being able to get to a place of treatment? How long would it have taken to have organized a ground crew to be mobilized to meet them and then have transport/an ambulance on standby ready and waiting to facilitate the transfer to that magical place of competent appropriate treatment that would save someone going into severe cardiac arrest? Less than five hours? You of course assume that if they found an airstrip to land which would take anything up to an hour anyway. Find the strip work out how to land on it. Check that it is in use. Then hope that the ambulance that you mobilse to meet you only has to travel just around the corner. Did I mention it would have to have a paramedic squad driving it and be stocked with all the appropriate gear to save one going through severe heart trauma.
Would the airstrip/port be big enough to have JetA fuel for any possible refueling that the plane might require?
Once they had landed, what further responsibility should the pilot take in making sure that the woman was handed over to competent health care professionals and would'nt be at the mercy of randomness, language barriers, lack of legal tender and or criminal elements in the region that they landed in?
What about the passengers, the other 99.9% of his human cargo who would/might need additional resources should he the pilot make a stop in the middle of nowhere and then suddenly finds that his toilets will probably back up to overflowing and he'll be cutting it fine running out of food and drink and he has a few burley types getting belligerent because of the inconvenience to them and they are already on their third vodka?
A woman is 'sick'. A 'doctor' materializes from the cabin and says you have to land now or she is going to die. Now reprocess all the previous concerns(and they would probably only be the tip of the iceberg of concerns and commercial constraints that the pilot has to consider,(no Matilda altruism is fine when its other peoples money) and then you be the pilot and work out if you might not do the same as he did when you consider the possibility that he might also have to factor in the possibility that what he was witnessing was some form of hoax leading to a hijack/terrorist act and in the five seconds that all this information flashed in front of you, would you still do it differently?
15 Mar 07
Originally posted by UbersuckActually I found a follow-up article: http://www.aftonbladet.se/vss/nyheter/story/0,2789,1018346,00.html
That single article is over a week old, and nothing else has been in the news since? No one else has been claiming anything of the sort. NO ONE? I've tried to find other articles about it in a key word search, come up with nothing.
That alone makes my spider senses tingle. I think it's a case of bad journalism.
That article sounds quite different. For example, it says that the Swedish foreign department (or whatever that may be in English) was contacted at once, and they worked hard on finding the best place to land and getting a permit. Also, according to this article, the ambulance was already waiting when they arrived in Moscow. They believe that the crew did all they are supposed to do. Judging from the earlier article (which included statements by passengers), I wonder if they could have informed the passengers better, though.
The first article was a bit sensationalistic, so I agree partly on the bad journalism. On the other hand, they didn't draw conclusions, and the only information which is clearly wrong was about the arrival time of the ambulance. Otherwise, they used the information they had at that time, and they followed it up with new information.
15 Mar 07
2 edits
Originally posted by NordlysExcellent, thank you Nordlys. I hope Stockten takes note. Before rushing to judgement of others, one should actually know what he's talking about. The plane was a 747 flying over areas that can be quite touchy, one just doesn't start violating other countries airspace with no notice.
Actually I found a follow-up article: http://www.aftonbladet.se/vss/nyheter/story/0,2789,1018346,00.html
That article sounds quite different. For example, it says that the Swedish foreign department (or whatever that may be in English) was contacted at once, and they worked hard on finding the best place to land and getting a permit. Also, according to this they used the information they had at that time, and they followed it up with new information.
For making all kinds of noise and falsely accusing the pilot of such behaviour and calling for his head before knowing the facts....we should hang Stockten now.
15 Mar 07
Originally posted by UbersuckYadda, yadda, yadda. Nae, I still think we should hang the Captain. I mean,
Excellent, thank you Nordlys. I hope Stockten takes note. Before rushing to judgement of others, one should actually know what he's talking about.
what fun do we have if not judging people prematurely? 😀