Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

More checklists for pilots to keep straight.

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • More checklists for pilots to keep straight.

    I'm going to venture a wild guess...the FINAL decision falls to the captain.

    What does the QRH say when you have a passenger with "a condition"...what are the right steps to determine whether it's contagious and you've made your passengers safer, OR you choose the wrong option and have generated a PR disaster?

    https://www.yahoo.com/news/mother-so...090946660.html

    One option is more admonishment and beatings for pilots using cowboy improvisation- hey, always A favorite, if not THE favorite.

    We can definitely think of ways the captain can do it better.

    I STILL default that you might try to remember what you learned in 172 school and not pull the sidestick all the way back...then you can worry whether you did the right thing kicking the poster child off the plane.
    Les règles de l'aviation de base découragent de longues périodes de dur tirer vers le haut.

  • #2
    This person knew what she had, named it, explained it, explained that it was genetic and not contagious, the crew had an opportunity to google it...

    Did they believe that she was lying?

    The funny part is that most really nasty contagious diseases (Ebola, bird flue, swine flue) don't have any symptoms for a few days, period during which they are already very contagious.

    Should we declare that everybody boarding a plane has a contagious disease unless proven otherwise?

    --- Judge what is said by the merits of what is said, not by the credentials of who said it. ---
    --- Defend what you say with arguments, not by imposing your credentials ---

    Comment


    • #3
      Are we all ignoring the fact that someone with a dry skin condition is called Flake?

      Sorry. I know I'm going to hell.

      Comment


      • #4
        Originally posted by 3BS
        We can definitely think of ways the captain can do it better.
        Originally posted by Gabriel View Post
        This person knew what she had, named it, explained it, explained that it was genetic and not contagious, the crew had an opportunity to google it...

        Did they believe that she was lying?

        The funny part is that most really nasty contagious diseases (Ebola, bird flue, swine flue) don't have any symptoms for a few days, period during which they are already very contagious.

        Should we declare that everybody boarding a plane has a contagious disease unless proven otherwise?
        Indeed: Gabieee has a way for the Captain to do things better.

        In the meantime, Evan is concerned that the Captain doesn't know why the wing works, and wants him to nail the correct memory checklist, (without any knowledge that hard pull ups cause 172s to stall nor knowledge that known robust power settings and attitudes yield robust airspeeds), and 3BS still wonders why someone would pull up relentlessly for 38,000 feet...but increasingly sees how it could happen.
        Les règles de l'aviation de base découragent de longues périodes de dur tirer vers le haut.

        Comment


        • #5
          Originally posted by NeilA330 View Post
          Are we all ignoring the fact that someone with a dry skin condition is called Flake?

          Sorry. I know I'm going to hell.
          save me a place, cuz i laughed at your post!

          Comment


          • #6
            so evan will curse me for being a money-grubbing lawyer only interested in making money at the expense of others (kinda what the entire world does), but aa needs to be sued and needs to pay out millions to this woman. apologies and bullshit upgrades don't cut it. the lesson to be learned needs to be learned with pain and the only pian companies feel is monetary. frankly, the crew should all be fired. yes, for something this stupid. let's the rest of the employee ranks learn real fast that doing some stupid, discriminatory shit will cost you your job.

            Comment


            • #7
              Originally posted by TeeVee View Post
              so evan will curse me for being a money-grubbing lawyer...
              No, I wouldn't call you that. Not unless you asked for...

              millions
              Ah, there you have it.

              Comment


              • #8
                I don't get it. They actually looked the condition up on the internet, which clearly identifies it as a non-contagious, genetic disorder. So what was the real problem here?

                Could the problem have been... other people?

                As for having to ask at all, that needs to be done at the ticket counter or the gate. Actually, ALL booking platforms should be required to ask customers—after completing the purchase—if they have a medical condition that would require special needs or that might alarm the crew. In this case, it would have allowed these people to inform the crew ahead of time that there was no reason for alarm.

                These after-boarding conflicts are indicative of a pre-boarding, systemic failure.

                Comment


                • #9
                  there's this pesky federal law called HIPPA. also, there is the common courtesy of minding your own fucking business. just because someone "looks" sick or different, or weird or black, doesn't give anyone any rights greater than that person. it is simply mind numbing that any airline would remove a paying passenger because of this or anything remotely similar. hell yeah i would demand millions. tens of millions. its called punitive damages. i'd also sue the complaining passengers, if in fact that's what set i things in motion.

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    Originally posted by Evan View Post
                    As for having to ask at all, that needs to be done at the ticket counter or the gate. Actually, ALL booking platforms should be required to ask customers if they have a medical condition that would require special needs or that might alarm the crew. In this case, it would have allowed these people to inform the crew ahead of time that there was no reason for alarm.

                    These after-boarding conflicts are indicative of a pre-boarding, systemic failure.
                    no. no. no. this just adds another layer of complexity to a system that's already too complex for the folks that work in it to understand and handle. also, it will be used as a basis for denying boarding. i have a cold. i have pink eye. i'm hiv+. i'm returning from mexico and have montezuma's revenge. i'm elderly and am diabetic, hypertensive, with mild CHF, renal failure, and i have a hernia.

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      Originally posted by TeeVee View Post
                      ***i would demand millions. tens of millions.***
                      Lawyers are supposed to be good a logic right?

                      Do you think that someone might also demand "tens of millions" of dollars if the airline let someone on with Ebola (but no symtoms) and infected another passenger? (Shouldn't it have been obvious to a reasonable person that you were picking up passengers from a high risk area...shouldn't you be taking precautions?)

                      Do you think that someone might also demand "tens of millions" of dollars if the airline let someone on who was obviously suffering from the flu of the month and then Junior caught the flu and did died?

                      Any conflict here? Damned if you do, Damned if you don't? (I'll be curious if you answer the question or divert- all my lawyer friends are bad ass at argument while not_answering questions.)

                      I'll take some blame, we want it both ways, treat non-contagious, cancer kids with genetic behavior problems with nothing but love, but for God's sake, you better protect me from germs (cuz I AM paying you money).

                      But make no mistake, your profession profits greatly and distorts the truth in order to make the case and up the profits.

                      Go ahead, play the "show me something better" card...

                      My card says- "Err on the side of caution- safety first", it's a GD cattle hauler, not an air ambulance (and that includes bulldogs with effed up sinus plumbing, kids with leprosy and fat old guys with congestive heart failure that will be O2 stressed at 8000 ft of cabin altitude.)
                      Les règles de l'aviation de base découragent de longues périodes de dur tirer vers le haut.

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        Originally posted by TeeVee View Post
                        its called punitive damages.
                        a.k.a. money grubbing.

                        Punitive damages should only go to the state, not the accuser and not the lawyer. Restitution should be paid to the accuser and council in proportion to the injury (which is a subjective amount determined by a judge, who—in a just world— would be disbarred if the amount is grossly disproportionate).

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          Originally posted by TeeVee View Post
                          no. no. no. this just adds another layer of complexity to a system that's already too complex for the folks that work in it to understand and handle. also, it will be used as a basis for denying boarding. i have a cold. i have pink eye. i'm hiv+. i'm returning from mexico and have montezuma's revenge. i'm elderly and am diabetic, hypertensive, with mild CHF, renal failure, and i have a hernia.
                          I disagree. It's a simple notation to a booking (after the booking is complete, so it cannot discriminate unfairly). It gives the passenger an opportunity to avoid these torrid conflicts with dimwitted FA's. It gives airlines an opportunity to refuse to carry the passenger if the condition is deemed a risk to the other passengers (or if they cannot provide for the special needs). It gives everyone some reassurance that, if a passenger appears to have a threatening medical condition, the airline has already looked into it and ruled that out.

                          For example, an HIV+ passenger would be deemed a non-threat. But that is redundant: there is no reason an HIV+ passenger would have to inform the airline of the condition, because it requires no special needs and will not alarm the other passengers or flight crew.

                          Another example would be a passenger with viral conjunctivitis. This is highly contagious. I don't want to be next to this person. The airline should have the right to refuse to carry this person until the condition has passed. This would be discovered and decided well before boarding.

                          Comment


                          • #14
                            @ 3BS

                            not sure where you're comin from in yer last post. i'm NOT advocating that airlines have ANY responsibility for protecting pax from diseases onboard. on the contrary, i absolutely DO NOT want this in any shape or form. they have one job only: get me from a to b safely, and by safely, i mean safe from aircraft/pilot/weather dangers. bombs and guns are the job of (god help us) the tsa. as far as i'm concerned, everyone assumes the same risk of infection when boarding a plane as they do being on public. elevators are smaller than cabins and we all use them without any expectation that the building owner screen sick folks.

                            @ Evan

                            do you even understand the idea behind punitive damages? clearly not. of course, your general attitude evinces that neither you no anyone you care about deeply has been wronged. but ok.

                            you advocate that uncle sam get the damages? yeah, cuz that works wonderfully. take the fines levied against financial institutions for fucking over thousands of people as in the case of wells fargo. the people actually hurt get pennies, while uncle sam gets tens of millions. and what did uncle sam do after? diddly shit nothing. n-o-t-h-i-n-g.

                            no one really complains about statutes that award victims of certain crimes and torts treble damages. yet ignorant people rant on and on about greedy lawyers and punitive damage awards that are out of control.

                            since you are an intelligent person that likes to educate himself, consider these excerpts from various US supreme court cases on the subject:

                            Compensatory damages "are intended to redress the concrete loss that the plaintiff has suffered by reason of the defendant's wrongful conduct." By contrast, punitive damages serve a broader function; they are aimed at deterrence and retribution."

                            "[T]he most important indicium of the reasonableness of a punitive damages award is the degree of reprehensibility of the defendant's conduct."

                            "We have instructed courts to determine the reprehensibility of a defendant by considering whether: the harm caused was physical as opposed to economic; the tortious conduct evinced an indifference to or a reckless disregard of the health or safety of others; the target of the conduct had financial vulnerability; the conduct involved repeated actions or was an isolated incident; and the harm was the result of intentional malice, trickery, or deceit, or mere accident."

                            and just to speed up your acquisition of knowledge, the US sup court has on several occasions drastically reduced punitive damages awards, albeit with very well reasoned dissents from several justices, including the late Scalia.

                            Comment


                            • #15
                              Originally posted by TeeVee View Post
                              Compensatory damages "are intended to redress the concrete loss that the plaintiff has suffered by reason of the defendant's wrongful conduct." By contrast, punitive damages serve a broader function; they are aimed at deterrence and retribution."
                              Exactly. The accuser is due (reasonable) compensatory damages. By contrast, punitive damages should be paid as a debt to society, to the state. The government (if it is ever restored and I have faith that it will be) is the people and the treasury is its commonwealth.

                              and just to speed up your acquisition of knowledge, the US sup court has on several occasions drastically reduced punitive damages awards, albeit with very well reasoned dissents from several justices, including the late Scalia.
                              At considerable public expense. Which wouldn't be necessary if lower court justices established punitive damages, such that 'the punishment fit the crime' without the assistance of money grubbing lawyers.

                              But whatever, last I checked, this was still the aviation safety forum.

                              Comment

                              Working...
                              X