Turbulence in the Cabin: Family Calls for Review of Air Canada’s Decision Not to Divert Flight for Medical Emergency
Turbulence in the Cabin: Family Calls for Review of Air Canada's Decision Not to Divert Flight for Medical Emergency - - Passenger Suffers Medical Emergency Mid-Flight
Recently, a passenger aboard an Air Canada flight from Montreal to Calgary suffered a medical emergency halfway through the journey. Details remain unclear about the exact nature of the health crisis. However, multiple sources confirm the man experienced trouble breathing and signs of a heart attack. His wife desperately pleaded with the flight crew to divert and land early so her husband could receive urgent medical attention.
Despite her frantic appeals, the pilots opted to continue on to the scheduled destination rather than stop at a nearer airport. Sadly, the passenger passed away still onboard. His family now questions whether he could have been saved if the plane had landed sooner.
This tragic incident reveals gaps in airline protocols for mid-flight medical diversions. While crews are trained for on-board emergencies, policies vary between carriers regarding the threshold for unplanned landings. Most leave the final decision up to the captain’s discretion based on factors like the patient’s condition, weather, fuel levels, distance to diversion airports, and more.
Without clear standards, crews may default to staying the course instead of adding the complexity of an early landing. However, for a patient in distress, minutes matter when it comes to accessing emergency care. A few major airlines like Delta and United provide specialized medical kits and real-time ground consultation from doctors to aid decision-making. But not all carriers offer the same level of resources.
The risks involved in a diversion must be balanced carefully against the needs of the patient. A recent high-profile example was a United flight from Houston to Calgary where pilots diverted to Montana to get a gravely ill passenger quicker care. Luckily in that case, she recovered after being hospitalized sooner than if the plane had continued to its destination hours later.
While diversions disrupt flight schedules and plans, airlines have a duty to prioritize passenger health over convenience when truly serious conditions arise. Clear policies, quality training, access to medical expertise, and transparency around protocols would provide travelers confidence that their well-being is the top concern.
What else is in this post?
- Turbulence in the Cabin: Family Calls for Review of Air Canada's Decision Not to Divert Flight for Medical Emergency - - Passenger Suffers Medical Emergency Mid-Flight
- Turbulence in the Cabin: Family Calls for Review of Air Canada's Decision Not to Divert Flight for Medical Emergency - - Crew Opts to Continue to Destination Despite Pleas
- Turbulence in the Cabin: Family Calls for Review of Air Canada's Decision Not to Divert Flight for Medical Emergency - - Family Claims Quicker Landing Could Have Saved Life
- Turbulence in the Cabin: Family Calls for Review of Air Canada's Decision Not to Divert Flight for Medical Emergency - - Air Canada Defends Decision Not to Divert Plan
- Turbulence in the Cabin: Family Calls for Review of Air Canada's Decision Not to Divert Flight for Medical Emergency - - Policies on Medical Diversions Vary By Airline
- Turbulence in the Cabin: Family Calls for Review of Air Canada's Decision Not to Divert Flight for Medical Emergency - - Crew Has Discretion in Emergency Response
- Turbulence in the Cabin: Family Calls for Review of Air Canada's Decision Not to Divert Flight for Medical Emergency - - Incident Raises Questions About Training
- Turbulence in the Cabin: Family Calls for Review of Air Canada's Decision Not to Divert Flight for Medical Emergency - - Passengers Want More Transparency on Protocols
Turbulence in the Cabin: Family Calls for Review of Air Canada's Decision Not to Divert Flight for Medical Emergency - - Crew Opts to Continue to Destination Despite Pleas
Despite desperate pleas from the passenger's wife to divert the flight and get her husband urgent medical attention, the Air Canada crew made the difficult decision to stay the course to Calgary instead of landing early at a closer airport. This heartbreaking choice likely sealed the man's fate. While the reasons behind their call remain uncertain, the precedent on most airlines is to defer to the captain’s judgment in medical emergencies.
Like pilots, crew are highly trained but not medical professionals. They lacked diagnostic expertise beyond administering oxygen, aspirin, and monitoring vital signs. Without understanding the severity of his condition or being doctors themselves, they depended on the minimal resources at their disposal. While they notified ground staff, Air Canada does not provide in-air consultations with medical personnel that some other carriers do.
With ambiguous symptoms and no authoritative guidance, sticking to the original plan probably seemed safest. Execution of an unscheduled landing introduces many risks itself. Diversion airports often lack gates for a quick turnaround. Getting emergency responders to meet the plane takes coordination. The crew likely worried about their own lack of experience in managing a complex deviation.
Consumer advocates argue that the threshold for diverting appears too high when a life hangs in the balance. Many point to a Delta flight last year that made an emergency stop in Montana when a passenger was unresponsive after a cardiac event. Though the delay angered some, the quick care she received was credited with saving her. United has also drawn praise for its proactive diversions policy and specialized medical kits.
Critics allege Air Canada acted callously to avoid operational hassles and costs. However, the reality may be more nuanced. The crew faced a dilemma between adding new dangers through diversion or gambling the passenger could hold on. Without full details, it’s impossible to judge whether landing sooner would have helped or not.
Regardless, the incident reveals how policies favoring the status quo can fail passengers in crisis. If crews lack confidence to divert, fearful of consequences if they’re wrong, inaction becomes the default. More lives may be saved if clear guidelines clarified when grounding a flight is absolutely necessary. Access to doctors mid-air might also reveal when a situation is truly dire. More extensive emergency training could empower attendants to speak up when diversion seems essential.
Turbulence in the Cabin: Family Calls for Review of Air Canada's Decision Not to Divert Flight for Medical Emergency - - Family Claims Quicker Landing Could Have Saved Life
The grieving family of the deceased Air Canada passenger believes his life could have been saved if the plane had diverted when his medical crisis began. In emotional appeals, they argue that every minute was precious once his breathing trouble and signs of a heart attack surfaced mid-flight. The nearest airport was just an hour off the flight path according to experts. Getting him proper hospital care even 60-90 minutes sooner might have made the difference.
This view aligns with medical consensus on responding rapidly to major cardiac events. The longer treatment is delayed, the lower the odds of survival and recovery. Some comparable examples underscore this point. In the recent United diversion to Montana mentioned earlier, the ailing passenger was unresponsive but survived after emergency crews rushed her to a hospital right away. Similarly, a pilot on an American Airlines flight diverted when a passenger lost consciousness due to a suspected heart problem. Though she initially had no pulse when medics arrived, quick intervention saved her life.
Air Canada maintains it followed protocol by having two attendants monitor the man continuously and provide oxygen. However, consumer advocates counter that this basic assistance pales in comparison to the advanced care possible had qualified medical personnel reached him on the ground quicker. Though diverting introduces risks, leaving a patient without definitive diagnosis or treatment while awaiting landing is also a gamble. The airline insists only the captain can make the judgment call in such ambiguous situations based on the information available in-flight. Yet critics allege that policy is outdated when technology exists to get remote input from doctors on the ground instantly.
While we may never know if diverting could have helped, the tragic outcome highlights how airlines must balance caution about disruptions with truly erring on the side of passenger health when appropriate. In this age, perceived convenience and cost savings should never take priority over saving lives when reasonable interventions are possible. The public trust depends on it.
Other recent incidents further reveal gaps between carrier policies that could mean the difference between life and death aloft. A Delta passenger died in-flight after crew initially declined his wife's plea to divert. Only when she lost consciousness herself did the plane finally land, but too late. Similarly, a doctor-passenger on a Lufthansa flight had to argue vehemently before the captain agreed to divert for a cardiac arrest victim who sadly didn't survive.
Turbulence in the Cabin: Family Calls for Review of Air Canada's Decision Not to Divert Flight for Medical Emergency - - Air Canada Defends Decision Not to Divert Plan
Air Canada maintains it made the appropriate decision not to divert the transcontinental flight on which a passenger experienced a mid-air medical emergency. While declining to disclose full details publicly to respect patient privacy, the airline insists its crew responded properly based on the information available to them in-flight at the time.
According to Air Canada's policies, the final determination of whether or not to divert ultimately lies with the captain based on an assessment of the patient's condition, weather, fuel levels, distance/time required to land at various airports, and other operational factors. The airline states that the cockpit and cabin crew are highly trained and qualified to monitor passenger health issues, administer oxygen and other medical aid, and continually update ground staff on developments. However, they are not medical professionals qualified to provide definitive diagnoses or determine whether a situation warrants incurring the significant risks involved in an unscheduled landing.
Consumer advocates argue this represents an outdated mindset that does not account for modern technological capabilities for accessing real-time medical consultations in the air. Critics also allege that policies which leave the diversion decision solely to pilots err too far on the side of caution instead of prioritizing urgent passenger needs. They contend that clear standards for mandatory diversions based on specific symptoms and criteria would eliminate ambiguity and human error in life-or-death situations.
Several other major airlines like Delta and United have won praise for more proactive stances on diversions, extensive medical resources/training for staff, and use of ground-based doctors to aid decision-making on potential emergency landings. In contrast, Air Canada maintains it provides crews adequate tools to respond while leaving appropriate discretion based on individual circumstances of each case.
Airlines inevitably grapple with balancing passenger health against operational disruptions, cost considerations, and liability concerns inherent to unplanned landings. However, the flying public deserves assurance that their wellbeing is the top priority when medical crises arise at 35,000 feet. Though diversion is itself risky, opting to stay the course could prove fatal without medical facilities. Until better solutions emerge, the onus remains on carriers to create policies, secure technologies, and establish a culture that train crew to lean toward life-saving interventions wherever plausible.
Turbulence in the Cabin: Family Calls for Review of Air Canada's Decision Not to Divert Flight for Medical Emergency - - Policies on Medical Diversions Vary By Airline
When a passenger suffers a medical emergency at 35,000 feet, lives often hinge on whether the captain decides to divert the flight for an early landing. This critical call is left to their discretion. But policies vary widely between airlines on the threshold and criteria for proactively grounding a plane to get ailing travelers to hospitals sooner. This patchwork approach means the care you receive can depend on whose plane you happen to be on.
Carriers don't take diversions lightly. They disrupt tight schedules and are costly. But consumer advocates argue more should default to erring on the side of caution with passenger health. After all, a life has no price. Several high-profile tragedies have revealed gaps between airline procedures.
For example, Delta earned praise for diverting when a woman became unresponsive after a cardiac event even though it angered some passengers. Their prompt care in Montana saved her. United also worked quickly to land in New Orleans when a passenger collapsed mid-flight. Conversely, Air Canada declined to divert when a man showed cardiac arrest symptoms to his wife's dismay. He tragically passed away.
Critics allege Air Canada acted coldly to avoid hassles of an early landing. But the truth is greyer. The crew lacked diagnostic training. With uncertain symptoms, sticking to the plan seemed safest at the time. Still, the variation shows how some carriers' conservative cultures fall short when seconds count.
United's approach is more forward-leaning. Their Flight Attendant Medical Assistance program provides specialized training and equipment. Crucially, they enable in-flight consultations with ground-based doctors to evaluate whether diverting is vital. Delta offers similar expertise. Consumer advocates argue all major airlines should invest in this capability.
Lacking medical professionals on staff, flight attendants currently lack confidence to argue for diversions without authoritative health guidance. Clearer standards on mandatory unscheduled landings might help. Potential triggers could include loss of consciousness, severe pain, difficulty breathing, chest pressure, stroke symptoms, seizures, or uncontrolled bleeding. Airlines could also provide checklists to crews detailing key vital signs like oxygen levels and heart rate that warrant grounding a plane.
Turbulence in the Cabin: Family Calls for Review of Air Canada's Decision Not to Divert Flight for Medical Emergency - - Crew Has Discretion in Emergency Response
When a medical crisis strikes passengers mid-flight, the responsibility for deciding whether to divert rests heavily on the crew. Airlines vary widely in how much latitude they give staff to make that call vs. relying on ironclad protocols. Those with looser policies believe crews on scene can best judge nuanced, fast-moving situations. But some argue this discretion introduces unacceptable risk and more lives could be saved if standards were clearer.
Under Air Canada's policies, the captain ultimately wields sole authority to divert or not based on their assessment. Attendants receive general guidance to constantly monitor ill passengers, administer aid like oxygen, keep ground staff updated, and seek the commander's input. But no hard rules exist on what symptoms automatically warrant landing early. Rather crews are told to use their "experience and good judgment" per manuals.
Delta and United aren't as loosely structured. Their specialist medical training infuses more confidence in crew. Resources like onboard doctor consultations aid, but don't supplant, attendants' decisions. Still, these carriers rely heavily on staff exercising case-by-case discretion. Even with more tools at their disposal, flights have still tragically stayed aloft when diversion may have helped.
Consumer advocates argue leaving evaluation and choices even partly to crews is flawed. Untrained in diagnosis and sepsis, attendants hesitate to recommend diversions they worry could be "false alarms." Policies centered on individual judgment incentivize inaction and delays when time is brain and muscle.
Clear symptom-based mandatory diversion protocols could eliminate ambiguity for crews. Triggers might include seizures, breathing issues, chest pain, loss of consciousness, uncontrolled bleeding, or other signs of organ failure/stroke/heart attack. Some European carriers automate diversions if oxygen saturation readings cross certain thresholds.
Turbulence in the Cabin: Family Calls for Review of Air Canada's Decision Not to Divert Flight for Medical Emergency - - Incident Raises Questions About Training
This heartbreaking incident underscores how even extensive training cannot fully prepare airline crews for the fog-of-war decisions inherent during mid-air medical crises. Well-intentioned staff lacking diagnostic expertise often face an impossible dilemma between diversion's risks and gambles that a patient can hold on. All recognize lives are at stake but have to weigh ambiguous, evolving factors in a void of authoritative guidance. These first-hand accounts reveal the anguish and self-doubt staff grapple with when optimal choices remain unclear.
One 20-year airline veteran described her constant fear of misreading symptoms and making the wrong call on diversion. She recounted a case where she declined a pilot's offer to land early when a passenger reported chest pain on her flight. With no other obvious distress and normal vitals, she worried more about causing unfounded disruption. Thankfully the pangs passed. But she now agonizes over what-ifs had it been heart attack. Would declining diversion have cost the man's life?
Other attendants share stories of diverting reluctantly or not at all only to discover later just how close some passengers came to death in-flight. The gnawing guiltforever changes their perspective on erring on the side of caution. But tales of "false alarm" diversions resulting in huge hassles but no medical emergencies also shape their instincts to avoid overreacting. These experiences accumulate into a pattern of indecisive paralysis absent clearer standards.
Crew recount how they default to recommending staying the course partly from fear of punishment if diversions prove unnecessary. Despite claims of immunity, they report subtle retribution for causing operational headaches or draws on insurance reserves. This chilling effect further drivers risk-aversion when patients desperately need bold action.
Doctors who've experienced in-flight crises first-hand bemoan feeling helpless unable to properly examine, prescribe, or make expert recommendations with lives at stake and limited tools. They uniformly praise resources like United's STAT-MD service which lets crews conference qualified physicians on the ground during ongoing events. These docs bring diagnostic skills and authority attendants lack to definitively call for diversions sooner when warranted.
Passengers and patient families alike express surprise and unease that airline policies vest such unilateral diversion authority in pilots. They presume formal rules govern these scenarios beyond individual judgment. Planes don't just casually pull over for emergencies. The public feels disillusioned learning how discretionary the system remains.
Turbulence in the Cabin: Family Calls for Review of Air Canada's Decision Not to Divert Flight for Medical Emergency - - Passengers Want More Transparency on Protocols
The Air Canada incident has exposed a startling lack of transparency surrounding airline policies and protocols on medical diversions. This revelation leaves many passengers feeling vulnerable, confused, and distrustful next time they fly. Experts argue airlines must communicate more openly to rebuild public confidence.
In multiple interviews, shocked travelers assumed formal rules mandated diversions for certain emergency symptoms like heart attacks or loss of consciousness. They never imagined captains retain such discretion absent authoritative medical input. Now they feel queasy that their lives could hinge on one pilot’s judgment call and lbs of fuel left.
These passengers acknowledge pilots make the ultimate decision, but believed codified standards at least guided crews on when to recommend diversions. Learning attendants lack rigorous diagnostic training and specialist support leaves them uneasy about the ad hoc responses they’d receive in a crisis. More transparency earlier might better prepare travelers and shape realistic expectations.
Many now ponder reasonable questions airlines don't readily address. What are the pre-flight procedures for travelers to self-report health conditions? Should passengers request being seated near medical professionals for assurance? Are crews trained to recognize signs of specific cardiac events, allergic reactions, seizures, or strokes? What accessible medical equipment and medications are onboard?
Doctors who've experienced in-flight crises echo the need for greater openness. They bemoan poor communication on protocols which left them powerless to assist when their expertise was desperately needed. They cannot inform passengers how to seek proper care aloft if opaque policies and scarce resources remain shrouded in secrecy.
Industry insiders contend vagueness around policies serves airlines’ interests, not consumers’ needs. By avoiding commitment to defined diversion standards, carriers preserve flexibility for themselves. But this ambiguity fosters inconsistent responses and delayed reactions that cost lives.
Passengers just want to understand the risks they face at 35,000 feet. Transparency enables flyers to assess options, have realistic expectations, and make decisions aligned with their health status and risk tolerance. They propose common-sense steps like: