gravydavy

Hi -- looked for this here, but maybe no FT'ers on flight?

Last night, was on UA 948 heading to LHR, when call went out for doctors on board. Eventually decision was made to land for medical emergency. Quick look at in flight map showed that we were "near" Montreal. Flight reveresed course and headed to ORD for a 2 am landing (and an overnight for the passengers in Chicago).

Anyone know anything about this? An older woman was wheeled off under O2, but seemed ok. I was just wondering why, in a medical situation, the landing doesn't happen at the nearest appropriate airport?

Note: Staff was on the ball and had hotel vouchers and info available for us upon landing.

ua_to_ord

Per flightaware, your location at the time of diversion was nowhere near Montreal, but instead on the southern shores of Hudson Bay:

http://flightaware.com/live/flight/U...212Z/KDEN/KORD

SEA1K4EVR

While I don't know anything about this specific case I think the decision on where to land is based on the urgency of the situation. The captain would have discussed this with the doctor on board (assuming there was one) as well as United operations and made the decision based on the condition of the sick passenger as well as consideration of being able to handle the other passengers.

UA does not have a large presence in Montreal (in fact it may be a UX only station) and it would likely have been more difficult to deal with accomodating everyone.. plus landing in Canada would have required everyone to go through customs and immigration there before going to a hotel. There may even be higher landing costs at Montreal vs. ORD (not that any of this would be a consideration if the passenger was seriously ill and in need of immediate medical care). Sounds like the decision they made worked out fine for all.

gravydavy

Oh, Okay...seems YYZ might have been closer then. Anyway, I just meant that it seemed if there was a medical emergency they'd want to get on the ground asap. COuld be ORDwas the only choice, but just wanted to see if anyone had any opinions. You do, apparently.

wxguy

Here's what happened to me when I was on a UA flight that had a medical diversion and landed in YWG. So I can certainly understand why the pilot wanted to get back to ORD if the medical condition of the patient would allow.

TA

who pays for this when it happens? Does UA just eat the loss, which I'm assuming is a fair amount of the profit they could turn on any given flight? Insurance?

and will this problem only get worse with larger planes, given that all it takes is one passenger to require you to divert, and the likelihood of one out of x # passengers having a medical emergency?

Do they try to get any costs back from the patient/patient's insurance? (not to be cold hearted here, I'm more interested in the difference between this and for example, a drunken jerk who causes the flight to be diverted -- they sure do try to get damages from him, right?)

What can be done on the part of UA to try to minimize the chances of something unfortunate like this happening, if they do have to just pay for it when it happens?

rjm656s

I was on UA948 on 5/16 and the call went out for a doctor. An FA had been injured in some way and was bleeding. We did not end up diverting, but paramedics met the plane on the ground at LHR.

gravydavy

I suppose First Aid could take care of that (and employee liability issues would be different).

Thanks for the replies, it certainly makes sense to get to a hub or final destination where the medical situation allows. This situation was odd in that no one on board seemed able to communicate with the patient (PA calls for anyone who speaks "Russian" followed by "Farsi" and later "any middle eastern language" than "Central Asian". Crew was making a very concerted effort.

Inconvenience aside, and as I am among the first to complain at poor service, I have to commend the flight and ground crew for taking care of an unfortunate situation with humor and professionalism.

halothane

It depends on what the medical need is of the pax. In my experience, the decision for diverting was always left up to me (by the captain) based on the immediate medical needs of the passenger.


Halothane

karenkay

i can vouch for this...was on the flight where halothane was a hero. ^

greg99

Oddly enough, I was on 948 that day, as well.

A couple of doctors responded to the call.

I was relatively close to the crew rest area where the FA with the injured hand was seated. It looked like perhaps the bleeding restarted relatively close to London, as there was a flurry of new activity with the doctors not long before arrival.

On a side note (perhaps for the pilot's thread), my guess is that the captain declared a PAN to get priority for landing, as we didn't hold at all, and we were moving at around 400 kts at 7500 feet, which would be a definite no-no in the US except in an emergency. We were coming in really hot for the landing - a "firm" landing. I was looking for the arresting gear on the runway - b/c I felt like we were on an aircraft carrier, making the first high speed turn to get to the gate.

I have got to find my FT luggage tags...

Greg

fastair

I am no pilot, but an immediate landing could be very heavy, and a longer diversion would give time to burn/dump fuel so as not to damage the aircraft (and passengers) in the process.

Heavy plane+short runway+possible weather (unknown by me)=something to be avoided.

andrewk829

I know it seems cold-hearted, but I would be pretty po'd if I were a passenger on this diverted flight and had to overnight in Chicago. Seems to me there ought to be a way to land, be met on the taxiway by a medical crew, deplane the affected passenger via "stairway on the back of a truck" (or one of those catering lifts), get a fuel truck out there to refuel if necessary, and get the bird back in the air ASAP. Do it this way, and it does not matter if it is a Canadian airport, does not matter whether it is a United station, etc etc. Why can't it be a 15-minute process?

shadowflower

andrewk829: There could be a constraint on the working hours for crew members?

SFflyer123

+1. I don't think it's cold-hearted; it's human. It's one thing if you directly had something to do with the bleeding, but if you're an innocent bystander, you are also punished for someone else's misfortune. I agree that it should be a situation where you land the plane, the ambulance takes the patient off while the plane is re-fueling, and you take off again.