News SQ Pilot refused to land for heart attack victim Max Pearson
Apr 17, 2011, 12:18 am
#1
Original Poster
Join Date: Nov 2009
Posts: 19
News SQ Pilot refused to land for heart attack victim Max Pearson
'Pilot refused to land for heart attack victim Max Pearson'
A PASSENGER has allegedly been left with long-term heart damage after being forced to endure a 14 hour flight while suffering a cardiac arrest.
BBC radio presenter Max Pearson is said to be considering legal action against Singapore Airlines over the incident, the UK's Daily Mail reported.
The journalist, who had been reporting on the Japanese tsunami, had flown from Tokyo to Singapore before boarding a connecting flight bound for London which landed on March 18.
Moments after the plane took off from Singapore Mr Pearson, 51, suffered a heart attack. Cabin crew allegedly refused to divert the plane so that Mr Pearson could receive urgent medical attention. He was rushed to hospital once the plane touched down at Heathrow. Emergency surgery saved his life.
While Mr Pearson has declined to speak of the incident yet, a BBC source said that he was lucky to be alive.
"It is lucky he managed to survive," the source said. "It looks as if he was attended to by one of the passengers, who was a doctor, during the flight.
"He says he asked for them to redirect him to hospital but it didn’t happen."
A spokesperson for the company refused to comment.
LINK: http://www.news.com.au/travel/news/p...-1226040494173
- BBC presenter Max Pearson has heart attack on flight
- Crew allegedly refused to make emergency landing
- Mr Pearson forced to endure 14-hour flight
A PASSENGER has allegedly been left with long-term heart damage after being forced to endure a 14 hour flight while suffering a cardiac arrest.
BBC radio presenter Max Pearson is said to be considering legal action against Singapore Airlines over the incident, the UK's Daily Mail reported.
The journalist, who had been reporting on the Japanese tsunami, had flown from Tokyo to Singapore before boarding a connecting flight bound for London which landed on March 18.
Moments after the plane took off from Singapore Mr Pearson, 51, suffered a heart attack. Cabin crew allegedly refused to divert the plane so that Mr Pearson could receive urgent medical attention. He was rushed to hospital once the plane touched down at Heathrow. Emergency surgery saved his life.
While Mr Pearson has declined to speak of the incident yet, a BBC source said that he was lucky to be alive.
"It is lucky he managed to survive," the source said. "It looks as if he was attended to by one of the passengers, who was a doctor, during the flight.
"He says he asked for them to redirect him to hospital but it didn’t happen."
A spokesperson for the company refused to comment.
LINK: http://www.news.com.au/travel/news/p...-1226040494173
Apr 17, 2011, 9:46 am
#3
Join Date: May 2002
Location: US
Programs: UA GS 2MM
Posts: 1,735
If true, this is a very sad story. I am sure more details will come out, however, that balance everything out.
The thing that strikes me as even more odd, however, is that he flew from NRT to SIN just to get home to London? SIN-LHR is longer than NRT-LHR, and he had to fly 7 hours just to get to SIN! Singapore Airlines is not THAT good.
The thing that strikes me as even more odd, however, is that he flew from NRT to SIN just to get home to London? SIN-LHR is longer than NRT-LHR, and he had to fly 7 hours just to get to SIN! Singapore Airlines is not THAT good.
Apr 17, 2011, 10:19 am
#4
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: BOM-SIN-EWR
Programs: UA*G (1K again), Sixt Plat, *was*: SQ QPP01 & SK EBS/EBG, LH SEN, AA EXP, 9wPlat
Posts: 8,606
If true, this is a very sad story. I am sure more details will come out, however, that balance everything out.
The thing that strikes me as even more odd, however, is that he flew from NRT to SIN just to get home to London? SIN-LHR is longer than NRT-LHR, and he had to fly 7 hours just to get to SIN! Singapore Airlines is not THAT good.
The thing that strikes me as even more odd, however, is that he flew from NRT to SIN just to get home to London? SIN-LHR is longer than NRT-LHR, and he had to fly 7 hours just to get to SIN! Singapore Airlines is not THAT good.
They do have one of the *best* in-flight service in the air, but the way they are so inflexible about most other things has made me fly them only as a last resort, or with miles, as I have given all of my longhaul to LH rather than fly via SIN as I used to do...
With regard to flying via SIN rather than direct on ANA or BA - who knows - maybe he wanted PPS credit or had a return ticket on SQ that he couldn't endorse to another *A carrier - there are so many other possibilities that we would not know about unless all facts were published.
Doesn't surprise me - SQ is only out for maximum profit, and the inefficiency of having to land for someone in need of medical attention is not something they would consider, as far as I have experienced...
Last edited by SuperFlyBoy; Apr 17, 2011 at 12:48 pm
Apr 17, 2011, 11:44 am
#5
Join Date: Mar 2010
Location: UK
Programs: Virgin Flying Club Red, Emirates Skywards Blue, BA Executive Club Blue, Amex BA
Posts: 2,375
Apr 17, 2011, 12:45 pm
#6
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: YYZ/DLC
Programs: AP, HHonours Diamond
Posts: 3,722
Speaking from his Ł750,000 home near East Grinstead, West Sussex, where he is resting, Mr Pearson said: ‘I don’t want to talk about it yet. It’s a very delicate situation.’
Must be some UK thing that us yanks don't get.
Apr 17, 2011, 3:47 pm
#7
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: Tasmania, Australia
Programs: M&M SEN, Amex Plat, Club Carlson, Marriott, HHonors & Accor Gold, Velocity Silver, Qantas Bronze
Posts: 3,767
No it is stupid tabloid media!!! Personally, and I am not doctor, I doubt that somebody can survive massive attack (requiring life saving emergency surgery) for 14 hours...
Interestingly too, the story is actualy 5-6 weeks old. Cannot understand that it would not come up earlier - the doctor on board (according the article) should be required to report it...
Interestingly too, the story is actualy 5-6 weeks old. Cannot understand that it would not come up earlier - the doctor on board (according the article) should be required to report it...
Apr 17, 2011, 3:58 pm
#8
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: London, UK
Posts: 567
The routing may have been chosen for reasons of cost. The BBC, whose TV licence fee has been "frozen" by the UK government, must strictly control its budget. Staff are obliged to book economical tickets.
Apr 17, 2011, 7:10 pm
#9
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: LHR
Posts: 32
It is possible that direct flights out of Tokyo were fully booked. Some of my work colleagues were there during the earthquake/tsunami and really struggled to get a flight out afterwards.
On another note - as much as I love SQ service, planes, etc., I have to admit if this is true it would't surprise me. Not because I think they are cold-hearted, but because I always get the sense that SQ just can't deal with unexpected situations.
On another note - as much as I love SQ service, planes, etc., I have to admit if this is true it would't surprise me. Not because I think they are cold-hearted, but because I always get the sense that SQ just can't deal with unexpected situations.
Apr 17, 2011, 8:04 pm
#10
Ambassador, Hong Kong and Macau
Join Date: May 2009
Location: HKG
Programs: Non-top tier Asia Miles member
Posts: 19,772
Airliners.net is already way ahead of this thread...they've already pulled out the Montreal and Chicago conventions http://www.airliners.net/aviation-fo....main/5120583/
Apr 18, 2011, 7:35 pm
#11
Join Date: Oct 2008
Location: Portland, OR
Programs: Star Alliance, One World, Skyteam, BR, GA, EK, VX, SPG, Marriott, Hyatt, Hilton, IC
Posts: 4,065
Although I can't personally say that the news may be untrue, I found that SQ in my own personal opinion especially their flight attendants tend to have been the most professional and trained in almost all contingencies.
Back in 08 during a SIN-LAX flight on SQ 37, I had suffered mild asthma and fever en-route. There were 2 things that could happen as a result of this: either I had food poisoning, or it was just pure asthma. The FAs asked me what was wrong and just told them I had an asthma relapse. I asked for an oxygen tank just to make sure that I can breathe especially since I've never experienced it on a plane before.
According to procedure they announced over PA for any passengers with medical background. In the meantime, one of the FAs made sure I was comfortable until either a paramedic/doctor was found. In the case that there were neither, they would emergency land the aircraft in NRT since it was the closest airport at the time so I can get taken care of (the lead male FA also pointed out that medical expenses are at the passenger's own expense, which was fine by me).
Luckily a doctor was aboard, and they gave him a first-aid kit, blood-pressure meter, and a couple of other electronics to determine my condition. After a few minutes the kind doctor said that I had mild asthma and the fever was a side-effect. The doctor recommended the FAs that I should have an oxygen tank so I can breathe a bit easier which they did.
The reason above is why I think the story has some potential of being not true and it is only one sided.
They may be a tad bit too cautious at times which is why they were rather reluctant to give me the oxygen until they made sure it was ok.
If I remember in the threads within last year there were a number of times where SQ Air Crew handled themselves really well against unpredictable situations.
In short if they could, in an emergency land a plane when I had an asthma attack. They would've certainly done the same and more in this case.
Back in 08 during a SIN-LAX flight on SQ 37, I had suffered mild asthma and fever en-route. There were 2 things that could happen as a result of this: either I had food poisoning, or it was just pure asthma. The FAs asked me what was wrong and just told them I had an asthma relapse. I asked for an oxygen tank just to make sure that I can breathe especially since I've never experienced it on a plane before.
According to procedure they announced over PA for any passengers with medical background. In the meantime, one of the FAs made sure I was comfortable until either a paramedic/doctor was found. In the case that there were neither, they would emergency land the aircraft in NRT since it was the closest airport at the time so I can get taken care of (the lead male FA also pointed out that medical expenses are at the passenger's own expense, which was fine by me).
Luckily a doctor was aboard, and they gave him a first-aid kit, blood-pressure meter, and a couple of other electronics to determine my condition. After a few minutes the kind doctor said that I had mild asthma and the fever was a side-effect. The doctor recommended the FAs that I should have an oxygen tank so I can breathe a bit easier which they did.
The reason above is why I think the story has some potential of being not true and it is only one sided.
They may be a tad bit too cautious at times which is why they were rather reluctant to give me the oxygen until they made sure it was ok.
If I remember in the threads within last year there were a number of times where SQ Air Crew handled themselves really well against unpredictable situations.
In short if they could, in an emergency land a plane when I had an asthma attack. They would've certainly done the same and more in this case.
Apr 18, 2011, 8:05 pm
#12
Ambassador, Hong Kong and Macau
Join Date: May 2009
Location: HKG
Programs: Non-top tier Asia Miles member
Posts: 19,772
We can't be sure what the (unconfirmed) doctor on board called. But if the doctor was onboard and advised to land, even though the PIC makes the final call I'll be surprised if any PIC would override a doc on this one.
Apr 18, 2011, 8:08 pm
#13
Join Date: Jan 2010
Location: DOH / SYD
Programs: QF / QR WP, VA plat, SQ*G, HH diamond
Posts: 41
This is likely media hype / overreporting.
SQ like most other airlines utilise a medical service on the ground and can patch up with them for any sick passenger or crew on board to get guidance from an on ground physician. The decision to divert is then a decision made between the physician on the ground, the operating captain and any on board volunteer.
I suspect this didnt happen immediatley out of SIN - the decision to divert on medical grounds does not always mean to land at the nearest appropraite diversion field. The people involved also need to be cetrain the diversion port has medical infrastructure to a suitable standard to care for, in this case serious heart condition. Many diversion points between SIN and western europe are not considered medical diversion points for this reason.
FWIW I have found SQ crew excellent with medical incidents on board.
SQ like most other airlines utilise a medical service on the ground and can patch up with them for any sick passenger or crew on board to get guidance from an on ground physician. The decision to divert is then a decision made between the physician on the ground, the operating captain and any on board volunteer.
I suspect this didnt happen immediatley out of SIN - the decision to divert on medical grounds does not always mean to land at the nearest appropraite diversion field. The people involved also need to be cetrain the diversion port has medical infrastructure to a suitable standard to care for, in this case serious heart condition. Many diversion points between SIN and western europe are not considered medical diversion points for this reason.
FWIW I have found SQ crew excellent with medical incidents on board.
Apr 18, 2011, 11:39 pm
#14
Join Date: Dec 2010
Posts: 106
Although I can't personally say that the news may be untrue, I found that SQ in my own personal opinion especially their flight attendants tend to have been the most professional and trained in almost all contingencies.
Back in 08 during a SIN-LAX flight on SQ 37, I had suffered mild asthma and fever en-route. There were 2 things that could happen as a result of this: either I had food poisoning, or it was just pure asthma. The FAs asked me what was wrong and just told them I had an asthma relapse. I asked for an oxygen tank just to make sure that I can breathe especially since I've never experienced it on a plane before.
According to procedure they announced over PA for any passengers with medical background. In the meantime, one of the FAs made sure I was comfortable until either a paramedic/doctor was found. In the case that there were neither, they would emergency land the aircraft in NRT since it was the closest airport at the time so I can get taken care of (the lead male FA also pointed out that medical expenses are at the passenger's own expense, which was fine by me).
Luckily a doctor was aboard, and they gave him a first-aid kit, blood-pressure meter, and a couple of other electronics to determine my condition. After a few minutes the kind doctor said that I had mild asthma and the fever was a side-effect. The doctor recommended the FAs that I should have an oxygen tank so I can breathe a bit easier which they did.
The reason above is why I think the story has some potential of being not true and it is only one sided.
They may be a tad bit too cautious at times which is why they were rather reluctant to give me the oxygen until they made sure it was ok.
If I remember in the threads within last year there were a number of times where SQ Air Crew handled themselves really well against unpredictable situations.
In short if they could, in an emergency land a plane when I had an asthma attack. They would've certainly done the same and more in this case.
Back in 08 during a SIN-LAX flight on SQ 37, I had suffered mild asthma and fever en-route. There were 2 things that could happen as a result of this: either I had food poisoning, or it was just pure asthma. The FAs asked me what was wrong and just told them I had an asthma relapse. I asked for an oxygen tank just to make sure that I can breathe especially since I've never experienced it on a plane before.
According to procedure they announced over PA for any passengers with medical background. In the meantime, one of the FAs made sure I was comfortable until either a paramedic/doctor was found. In the case that there were neither, they would emergency land the aircraft in NRT since it was the closest airport at the time so I can get taken care of (the lead male FA also pointed out that medical expenses are at the passenger's own expense, which was fine by me).
Luckily a doctor was aboard, and they gave him a first-aid kit, blood-pressure meter, and a couple of other electronics to determine my condition. After a few minutes the kind doctor said that I had mild asthma and the fever was a side-effect. The doctor recommended the FAs that I should have an oxygen tank so I can breathe a bit easier which they did.
The reason above is why I think the story has some potential of being not true and it is only one sided.
They may be a tad bit too cautious at times which is why they were rather reluctant to give me the oxygen until they made sure it was ok.
If I remember in the threads within last year there were a number of times where SQ Air Crew handled themselves really well against unpredictable situations.
In short if they could, in an emergency land a plane when I had an asthma attack. They would've certainly done the same and more in this case.
Yes, I do agree that SQ Crew do handle themselves very well against unpredictable situations. Years ago, when I was still in medical school and was travelling JFK-SIN, a passenger onboard had an epilepsy (it was pretty bad). There was a doctor onboard who attended to him (I did some minor assisting at his request). The first thing the Inflight Supervisor did, after the passenger stabilized was to ask if he could be moved up front (to J) as it was more comfortable. The pilot came out, chatted with the physician and checked on the passenger. Overall handling of the situation, I would say, very good.
It is in my opinion that there must be more to the story than what was actually reported. Again, that is my opinion based on my personal experience.