More Air Canada negligence. AC refused to divert flight resulting in passenger death

[Cecil Terwilliger]

As if leaving multiple disabled passengers to fend for themselves in recent weeks and forcing those passengers who need wheelchair assistance to drag themselves off flights, the world’s worst airline is now expanding their negligence to letting people die.


https://www.cbc.ca/amp/1.7015799

Apologies for so many quotes but the negligence runs deep on this one. The answer why AC didn’t divert is obvious. $$$. Cheaper to let him die and settle than pay for the diversion. Not to mention the use of a third party who they’ll lay the blame on, just like they did when they forced that disabled man to drag himself off the plane while the flight attendants watched and refused to help.

Flight AC051 had left Delhi shortly after midnight local time. When Pant's symptoms started seven hours later, it was over Europe. Pande says she pleaded with the cabin crew to divert the plane and land in order to get her father to a hospital.

Instead, the flight stayed on course for nine more hours, travelling over Ireland, across the Atlantic Ocean and Eastern Canada before touching ground in Montreal. Paramedics were waiting — but Pant died as they worked on him.

The airline's crew "properly followed the procedures" for dealing with onboard medical emergencies, wrote Fitzpatrick. When asked, he declined to explain the procedures.

Fitzpatrick says the crew made "repeated pages" for a passenger with medical training to come forward — but no one did.

Pande says a crew member only made those announcements after her mother-in-law insisted.

Meanwhile, the pilot was speaking with Phoenix-based MedAire, a third-party medical provider used by over 180 airlines, according to the company.

Fitzpatrick says MedAire lets the crew to talk with doctors familiar with the challenges of practising medicine on a plane "to evaluate the passenger and devise a care plan."

Go Public has learned that in the case of an in-flight medical emergency on Air Canada, the chief flight attendant fills out a checklist that is given to the pilot, who then discusses the case with a MedAire physician.

The airline would not tell Go Public what the checklist said in Pant's case. His daughter says she doesn't remember seeing anyone fill out a form about her father.

Once the plane was over Ireland — the last possible stop before the Atlantic Ocean — Pande says she again urgently asked the crew to change course. Her father now had severe back ache and was throwing up.

She was told the plane would continue to Montreal because Pant's condition was deemed "not life-threatening."

Go Public asked Air Canada how the decision to stay on course was made.

Fitzpatrick, the spokesperson, said he was unable to provide that information. He said the crew "provided continuous care," including offering him Aspirin.

Go Public contacted five physicians — two family doctors, two emergency room physicians and a cardiologist.

All five said Pant's symptoms indicated a serious cardiac event.

"This is a major medical emergency," said Vancouver cardiologist Dr. Vicki Bernstein, who practised for 40 years before retiring two years ago. "I can't believe that [MedAire] wouldn't have suggested that they divert."

[PaperBagger'14]

Thank you for flying AC, Air Casualty

[Hack&Lube]

Air Canada's license should be withdrawn and Canadian Airlines restarted.

[MoneyGuy]

Passenger: “I’ll never fly Westjet again; they’re terrible. I’m flying with Air Canada.”

Another passenger: “I’ll never fly Air Canada again; I’m going to Westjet.”

[Locke]

Originally Posted by Hack&Lube

Air Canada's license should be withdrawn and Canadian Airlines restarted.

Lol! It is and would be, essentially the just the same people under another banner.

[BlackArcher101]

Procedure relies on a game of telephone where important details are likely lost? That's just stupid, the pilot didn't leave the cockpit to see for himself? Hell, there would have been multiple pilots on board due to the length.

[White Out 403]

I'd like to know the difference between this and manslaughter or negligent homicide. The pilot should be arrested.

[Cecil Terwilliger]

Originally Posted by White Out 403

I'd like to know the difference between this and manslaughter or negligent homicide. The pilot should be arrested.

I’m not certain if pilot has the authority to divert without MedAire’s approval. They are the 3rd party medical assistance company AC and many other airlines use. If MedAire didn’t approve diverting, the pilots hands may have been tied.

I know we have some airline experts and pilots on CP. Perhaps they could chime in here.

Fitzpatrick said when medical experts recommend an aircraft be diverted, Air Canada will do so "without hesitation" and that diversions happen approximately 40 times a year.

[Locke]

You know, they could have just let the Gentleman off the plane midway through the flight and nobody would have been the wiser...

[Fuzz]

A bit of a generalization, but an aircraft Captain is never at the mercy of anyone, they are in charge of their plane. That's why they are the Captain.

[Locke]

Originally Posted by Fuzz

A bit of a generalization, but an aircraft Captain is never at the mercy of anyone, they are in charge of their plane. That's why they are the Captain.

Captain?? They're a Pilot...at best! Who made these clowns 'Captains?'

Not Air Marshall Carlin, thats for goddamned sure!

Drive the Air Taxi 'Captain.'

[D as in David]

Originally Posted by Locke

Captain?? They're a Pilot...at best! Who made these clowns 'Captains?'

Not Air Marshall Carlin, thats for goddamned sure!

Drive the Air Taxi 'Captain.'

Captain, shmaptain. Not even a senior officer. Call us when Colonels or Majors, at least, are flying our passenger planes.

[fotze2]

We all get screwed by businesses all the time but for some reason airline dickery boils me up so much more. It is so blatant and right to your face that it is infuriating.

Obviously this is a terrible story and I hope they get punished (if deserved of course) but airlines seem to take the cake more than any other business.

GE selling me a crap dishwasher, fine, they ignore correspondence and their genuinely garbage behavior shines through but somehow that makes it seem better, its at arms length. An airline has these smiling faces with these protocols where they look you in the face and lie to it and you have no recourse but to grin and bear it.

Remember that seat you paid an extra $100 for, that flight pattern you paid an extra $400 for, it's not there, its cancelled and you aren't getting any of your money back either and there is not a damn thing you can do about it. Go F yourself, oh and we could have told you this before making the trek to the airport but we know you can't call us a C in person like you could on the phone.

OH and see that police officer right over there and those customs officers beyond the doors (guys that can ruin your life), ya, I could crap in my hand and huck it at your face and they will back us, 100%, no questions.

[DoubleF]

So... to fill in the gaps to get an idea what the criteria is to divert a plane...

Here's a CDC article from a USA perspective (it seems) about whether or not to go forward if you had medical training:

https://wwwnc.cdc.gov/travel/yellowb...sible%20stroke.

It does say this:

Medical emergencies occur on ≈1 of every 604 flights. The most common emergencies include syncope or presyncope, respiratory symptoms, or nausea and vomiting. For 90% of these emergencies, aircraft continue to their destination. For the remaining 10%, however, aircraft divert to an alternative landing site, most frequently for cardiac arrest, cardiac symptoms (e.g., chest pain), obstetric or gynecologic issues, or possible stroke. Despite the frequency of medical emergencies, the death rate is only ≈0.3%.

In the CBC article, it says he was clutching his chest and at one point his face was drooping on one side. The individual was moved to first class. Unless there was some serious misunderstanding of the symptoms involved in the analysis and recommendation, it does seem like there should have been enough evidence to presume a potential cardiac or stroke related event either of which are of the most frequent reasons for diverting to an alternate landing site.


Then I checked this article here:

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3789915/

Interestingly enough, this article coincidentally uses Air Canada data as the support for diverting.

The act of diverting a full aircraft to the nearest city is expensive, estimated to range between $3,000 and $100,000 depending on the size of the plane and costs of additional fuel and passenger re-routing, and has far-reaching consequences.22 Diversion is usually made in consultation with ground-based medical expertise and should account for regional medical resources along the flight path. The final decision to make an emergency landing rests with the pilot in command. An article published by Ruskin et al23 advised diversion for unremitting chest pain, shortness of breath, or severe abdominal pain. Grendreau et al22 add stroke, persistent unresponsiveness, refractory seizures, and severe agitation to this list.

A 2010 study reviewing 4 years of flight diversion data from Air Canada revealed that the majority of diversions occurred following cardiac complaints.7 Regardless of the presenting symptom, in-flight or ground-based providers must assess a patient’s stability and perceived medical condition based on the limited clinical information available and then make a risk-based recommendation. Factors affecting this decision include the differential diagnosis of the patient’s condition, available in-flight resources, the patient’s response to initial treatments, and ground resources along the flight path. International flights that traverse oceans or large tracts of sparsely populated land may have a lower threshold for diversion before crossing these spaces given the paucity of resources once they are entered.

Again, it seems there should have been enough reason to divert and that AC hasn't shied from diverting before. However, what I find weird is this: Air Canada refused to comment, fair enough. But MedAire the company that consulted with the pilot also refused to comment. That's weird. They can refuse to comment on the case, but even stating that they go through a private checklist and typically reasons for diverting a plane include specific scenarios... they don't even say that. Shouldn't there be at least some insight into the standards of how a decision is made? (ie: We cannot comment but we do have a standard protocol and list of criteria we go through with the pilot for in flight emergencies. We will review the information to see if it was followed. etc.)

Introduction:
Research and data regarding in-flight medical emergencies during commercial air travel are lacking. Although volunteer medical professionals are often called upon to assist, there are no guidelines or best practices to guide their actions.

In-flight medical incidents during commercial air travel are common yet poorly understood and studied phenomena. The cramped quarters of an aircraft cabin environment and limited available resources make responding to such events fraught with challenging clinical decisions.

Existing data on both the incidence and classification of in-flight medical events are limited by the lack of a central registry with standardized data collection. Such a data collection tool has been advocated for by several international aviation organizations and could inform the development of emergency medical kits, flight crew medical training, and passenger screening protocols.

Based on this... it could be a situation that Air Canada is just the first to get flack for a situation that is potentially a global aviation issue. It's perhaps that there just isn't enough reason to push for improved procedures for this relatively rare scenario.

It's possible that Air Canada might not be totally at fault here. I wouldn't stand in anyone's way if they wanted to throw disdain at Air Canada though. Certainly we'd glean insight into the scenario if Air Canada does not use this event to spearhead the creation and deployment of a significantly improved and unified inflight medical emergency guide and best practice that many other airlines can adopt. It's crazy that this article is dated September 2023. This isn't a few years ago. This is seemingly ongoing.

If MedAire consults to over 180 Airlines, why does it seem to imply and indicate that there ultimately still isn't a general common standard for dealing with in flight emergencies? Weird.

Originally Posted by BlackArcher101

Procedure relies on a game of telephone where important details are likely lost? That's just stupid, the pilot didn't leave the cockpit to see for himself? Hell, there would have been multiple pilots on board due to the length.

I would venture a guess a pilot is procedurally almost always not allowed out of the cockpit after the plane is in the sky to prevent potential hijacking of the plane? That's why it has to be a telephone tag scenario.

This scenario is ultimately rare. But after reading a few things, I'm actually kinda mind blown how it's been identified in late 2023 that it seems that unified policies and procedures for in flight medical emergencies are inconsistent and lacking for many airlines (not just AC).

[White Out 403]

On flights the pilot is certainly allowed to exit the cabin and go to the bathroom. They have this little procedure where the flight attendants form a bit of a barrier so that he can safely exit and close the door behind him. If the captain can leave to take a piss, he can certainly check on somebody who's dying in his care, ####ting himself to death

[JonDuke]

Originally Posted by White Out 403

On flights the pilot is certainly allowed to exit the cabin and go to the bathroom. They have this little procedure where the flight attendants form a bit of a barrier so that he can safely exit and close the door behind him. If the captain can leave to take a piss, he can certainly check on somebody who's dying in his care, ####ting himself to death

Why would you trust a pilots medical opinion anyway? Flight attendants go through first aid training each and every year and are just as, if not more qualified than a pilot when it comes to anything medical related. I absolutely do not want the pilot of my plane walking to the back of the cabin to make a medical decision.

It's obviously horrible that someone died but as a former flight attendant, I can tell you that (at least when I flew) your job as cabin crew was to collect and relay information through the sat phone to the doctors on the other end and they, being actual, 3rd party medical professionals, were the ones who had the final decision whether to divert or not.

[DoubleF]

Originally Posted by White Out 403

On flights the pilot is certainly allowed to exit the cabin and go to the bathroom. They have this little procedure where the flight attendants form a bit of a barrier so that he can safely exit and close the door behind him. If the captain can leave to take a piss, he can certainly check on somebody who's dying in his care, ####ting himself to death

My bad. I thought they had mandated that the pilots stay in the cockpit and/or were only able to access a crew only area at most.

https://globalnews.ca/news/3668780/c...t-germanwings/

According to this, I guess it was a temporary measure for around a year that was basically removed soon afterwards for Canada in 2017.

The article says the USA (FAA) still had the 2 pilot rule as of the date of the article. No idea if the USA has also removed that rule, but I would assume that rule is removed as of today?

I still don't think it makes sense for a pilot to go to check on passengers mid flight. I think more robust procedures and guidelines are needed for in flight emergencies to be deployed by the crew instead.

[Art Vandelay]

Not defending AC but there has to be more to this story. I’ve been involved in 100s of calls with medaire and they never hesitate to recommend a diversion if symptoms warrant. I can’t imagine AC going against their recommendation so maybe they didn’t think it was as serious as it ended up being

And yes pilots can and to leave the fight deck for many reasons. In this case they would most likely defer to medaire’s recommendation anyways unless it was obvious that the passenger was in a critical situation.

[Locke]

Originally Posted by Art Vandelay

Not defending AC but there has to be more to this story. I’ve been involved in 100s of calls with medaire and they never hesitate to recommend a diversion if symptoms warrant. I can’t imagine AC going against their recommendation so maybe they didn’t think it was as serious as it ended up being

And yes pilots can and to leave the fight deck for many reasons. In this case they would most likely defer to medaire’s recommendation anyways unless it was obvious that the passenger was in a critical situation.

Dont sugarcoat it...you know what it is!

[Leondros]

https://www.forbes.com/sites/brucele...h=1e0b768c4a53

If Delta turned a whole plane around for diarrhea, I would expect Air Canada should divert a plane for a potential heart attack. Especially with the dude's daughter pleading with staff to so.