is this woman right to say the airline "essentially" poisoned her?

20-10-2016 05:37PM

She was the proverbial canary in the mine, the air quality was sub standard. She'd been medically cleared, she did her bit to ensure her risk was minimal.

Lets blame her anyway though.

darkpagandeath · 20-10-2016 05:39PM

Candie wrote: »

She was the proverbial canary in the mine, the air quality was sub standard. She'd been medically cleared, she did her bit to ensure her risk was minimal.

Lets blame her anyway though.

You can take a boat to Aus.

Ficheall · 20-10-2016 05:41PM

I'm in passable health and I don't think I could have stuck two hours on a plane on the runway. Ew.

20-10-2016 05:46PM

darkpagandeath wrote: »

You can take a boat to Aus.

You can take a rocket to the moon too.

darkpagandeath · 20-10-2016 05:47PM

Candie wrote: »

You can take a rocket to the moon too.

I doubt the doctor would sign off on that fit to fly cert.

Miaireland · 20-10-2016 05:51PM

Given that this is the Independent and much of their writing is emotive than factual it is hard to answer the op's question.

However I will say that the lady is portrayed as quite an unlikable character given her comments on the Charity. Again these could be taken out of context.

I do wonder as to the purpose of the article. Is she blaming the airline? She says she was given clearance to fly and let's face it flights are regularly delayed and people are often onboard when these delays occur. She does not appear to offer any real suggestion as to what the airline could have done differently. Indeed the delay was caused by someone who was sick rather than something caused by the airline.

What happened to her was horrible but sometimes you have to accept that things happen beyond anyone's control. Can passengers fly with oxygen or request that the airline carry it? In fairness given her medical history maybe this precaution should have been taken regardless of getting medical clearance.

EagererBeaver · 20-10-2016 05:52PM

Candie wrote: »

She was the proverbial canary in the mine, the air quality was sub standard. She'd been medically cleared, she did her bit to ensure her risk was minimal.

Lets blame her anyway though.

Well no, she wasn't, so that analogy is complete ****e.

darkpagandeath · 20-10-2016 05:53PM

Miaireland wrote: »

Given that this is the Independent and much of their writing is emotive than factual it is hard to answer the op's question.

However I will say that the lady is portrayed as quite an unlikable character given her comments on the Charity. Again these could be taken out of context.

I do wonder as to the purpose of the article. Is she blaming the airline? She says she was given clearance to fly and let's face it flights are regularly delayed and people are often onboard when these delays occur. She does not appear to offer any real suggestion as to what the airline could have done differently. Indeed the delay was caused by someone who was sick rather than something caused by the airline.

What happened to her was horrible but sometimes you have to accept that things happen beyond anyone's control. Can passengers fly with oxygen or request that the airline carry it? In fairness given her medical history maybe this precaution should have been taken regardless of getting medical clearance.

Or a boat did not notice any rush to get to Aus from the article. Should she not be suing the medical staff or the doctor ?

Miaireland · 20-10-2016 05:58PM

darkpagandeath wrote: »

Or a boat did not notice any rush to get to Aus from the article. Should she not be suing the medical staff or the doctor ?

To be fair they don't have a crystal ball. There is always a risk doing anything and given her medical history in particular they could never say with 100% certainty that something is not going to happen. To be fair it is impossible to say with 100% certainty that this was caused by the plane journey.

She mentioned that she passed all tests. The decision was made as a result of these tests.

darkpagandeath · 20-10-2016 06:01PM

Miaireland wrote: »

To be fair they don't have a crystal ball. There is always a risk doing anything and given her medical history in particular they could never say with 100% certainty that something is not going to happen. To be fair it is impossible to say with 100% certainty that this was caused by the plane journey.

She mentioned that she passed all tests. The decision was made as a result of these tests.

Maybe it's just me I assume delays when flying and make plans accordingly. I cant believe no one in the family voiced concerns over a 13,000 km flight with the medical condition she has.

jackofalltrades · 20-10-2016 06:02PM

Candie wrote: »

And if she was hypoxic it's because there was too much CO2 in the air, and the system was insufficient or faulty and failed to keep the air quality at an acceptable level.

Just because most passengers coped well, it does not mean the air quality was good.

Candie wrote: »

She was the proverbial canary in the mine, the air quality was sub standard. She'd been medically cleared, she did her bit to ensure her risk was minimal.

Lets blame her anyway though.

There is absolutely no proof that the air quality was in anyway sub standard or that it contained too much CO2.
The same goes to claims that the AC system was in anyway malfunctioning.
Air quality in aircraft is tightly regulated and tested.

If the slight delay on the ground caused her hypoxia then why didn't she show symptoms then?
Why wasn't she using a pulse oximeter if this was a risk?

dissed doc · 20-10-2016 06:08PM

HensVassal wrote: »

I don't get the impression that she is having a go at the airline. Do you see her assigning blame to anyone? She merely stated facts, i.e. that she was poisoned with CO2.

She basically has a go at Ireland, the airline, the support network in Australia.

Possibly the food supplier on the plane as well?

Holograph · 21-10-2016 12:34AM

Seems like there was negligence by the airline because of the air filtration being switched off - but it would have to be found to be negligent following an investigation I guess.
She got the clearance cert from her doctor in fairness so did do her homework first.

The attitude towards the Irish support group stinks a bit though. Perhaps a hostel 20 minutes away was genuinely the best they could do?

Red Kev · 21-10-2016 08:49AM

Holograph wrote: »

Seems like there was negligence by the airline because of the air filtration being switched off - but it would have to be found to be negligent following an investigation I guess.
She got the clearance cert from her doctor in fairness so did do her homework first.

The attitude towards the Irish support group stinks a bit though. Perhaps a hostel 20 minutes away was genuinely the best they could do?

There's no proof that the airline was negligent. If the air filtration system in a small space like a plane was switched off for 2 hours with 2-300 people on board, there would be a lot more people falling ill.

The support group can't put everybody into the exact accommodation they want as they have limited resources. More money spent on one family means less money, or indeed no money to be spent on the next family that need support. It's a charity, not some blank cheque waving crowd.

Holograph · 21-10-2016 11:01AM

Red Kev wrote: »

There's no proof that the airline was negligent. If the air filtration system in a small space like a plane was switched off for 2 hours with 2-300 people on board, there would be a lot more people falling ill.

But there wouldn't be a lot of other cystic fibrosis patients. I hate blame culture too, don't get me wrong, but I get the impression she has a case here. Of course I don't know for certain - obviously an investigation would be needed.

The support group can't put everybody into the exact accommodation they want as they have limited resources. More money spent on one family means less money, or indeed no money to be spent on the next family that need support. It's a charity, not some blank cheque waving crowd.

That's... pretty much what I said too. Didn't criticise them at all - I criticised the attitude of the woman and her family towards them.

Jimoslimos · 21-10-2016 12:50PM

Holograph wrote: »

But there wouldn't be a lot of other cystic fibrosis patients. I hate blame culture too, don't get me wrong, but I get the impression she has a case here. Of course I don't know for certain - obviously an investigation would be needed.

What gave you that impression? From what I'm reading I cannot see anything to indicate the airline was at fault.

If anyone (and it is a big if) could be slightly at fault it would be the medical team who gave her the all-clear. What were the nature of the tests? Could supplementary oxygen have been recommended?

Otherwise it was just unfortunate that the severity of her condition wasn't fully identified. The airline definitely can't be blamed for that.

Also nice that she felt the need to have a pop at the Irish health system (the same one that gave her the all-clear) conveniently forgetting that her healthcare in Australia is being paid for because of reciprocal agreements between the two countries

bucketybuck · 21-10-2016 01:04PM

Considering her condition, was there anything to be said for... not taking a long haul flight to Australia? Crazy idea I know.

jackofalltrades · 21-10-2016 01:22PM

Holograph wrote: »

But there wouldn't be a lot of other cystic fibrosis patients. I hate blame culture too, don't get me wrong, but I get the impression she has a case here. Of course I don't know for certain - obviously an investigation would be needed.

Why? The airline have already said the APU was on at the time.
If it wasn't then a load of people would have passed out.
This happened during the summer in Abu Dhabi, 30-40C heat with 80-90% humidity.

Jimoslimos wrote: »

If anyone (and it is a big if) could be slightly at fault it would be the medical team who gave her the all-clear. What were the nature of the tests? Could supplementary oxygen have been recommended?

That's what I'd love to know as well.
Are they designed to simulate this kind of predictable situation.
Is it a case that the test is too easy, is there a trade off between caution and practicality.
No doubt if it was made harder this lady would be complaining as well.

hatrickpatrick · 21-10-2016 02:00PM

"[The cause of] this has since been linked to the flight my partner and I took from Abu Dhabi to Sydney. The flight was delayed and remained at the gate, with the doors closed and the engine not running for over two hours.

Illness or not, as far as I'm concerned this should never be allowed on any form of transport, including trains, busses, etc. If there's a hold up, doors or windows should be opened. End of story.

Jimoslimos · 21-10-2016 02:33PM

jackofalltrades wrote: »

Why? The airline have already said the APU was on at the time.
If it wasn't then a load of people would have passed out.
This happened during the summer in Abu Dhabi, 30-40C heat with 80-90% humidity.

That's what I'd love to know as well.
Are they designed to simulate this kind of predictable situation.
Is it a case that the test is too easy, is there a trade off between caution and practicality.
No doubt if it was made harder this lady would be complaining as well.

AFAIK oxygen saturation and lung function tests (spirometry - where you blow as hard as possible into a cardboard tube) are carried out initially.

If either of these measurements are below a certain threshold then the doctor should request a hypoxia inhalation test where the patients breathes a low oxygen mixture (15%) to simulate levels at normal cabin pressures (about 8000ft) for about 20 minutes. The drop in alveolar oxygen pressure or arterial oxygen saturation will indicate whether supplemental oxygen should be considered - which most airlines (including Ethiad) can supply or the the patient can bring their own portable battery operated device.

For slightly more accurate results a hypobaric chamber can be used but this is not cost effective.

idunno78 · 21-10-2016 02:35PM

bucketybuck wrote: »

Considering her condition, was there anything to be said for... not taking a long haul flight to Australia? Crazy idea I know.

So because someone has an illness, which isn't affecting them at the time, they should put living a normal life out of there minds just incase?? Yea. Nobody should do anything if that is the case.

Jimoslimos · 21-10-2016 02:54PM

idunno78 wrote: »

So because someone has an illness, which isn't affecting them at the time, they should put living a normal life out of there minds just incase?? Yea. Nobody should do anything if that is the case.

Actually her actions in blaming the airline make this more likely - all that happens will be airlines end up introducing more stringent and complicated measures for passengers with CF and COPD.

Grayson · 21-10-2016 03:15PM

jackofalltrades wrote: »

Why? The airline have already said the APU was on at the time.
If it wasn't then a load of people would have passed out.
This happened during the summer in Abu Dhabi, 30-40C heat with 80-90% humidity.

The APU recycles air. There's a higher level of CO2 in it. But it's even higher when it's on the ground because the engines aren't on. Normally air is sucked in through the engines, cooled and sent to the cabin. When the engines aren't on the air isn't sucked in. So what she was breathing was air of a lower quality than she would have been breathing when the plane was in flight.

She was cleared to fly to Australia. That meant that she was cleared to spend time in a plane at altitude. Not in a plane on the ground.

I'm not saying that airline are to blame, I'm saying that they may be.

bucketybuck · 21-10-2016 03:23PM

idunno78 wrote: »

So because someone has an illness, which isn't affecting them at the time, they should put living a normal life out of there minds just incase?? Yea. Nobody should do anything if that is the case.

Isn't it great that flying to the other end of the planet just because you want to is considered "normal", what a wondrous modern age we live in!

Regardless of that, your point is rather inane. Sure it would be nice if life was all sunshine and roses and everybody could do what they wanted regardless of circumstances, but in the real world people with certain medical conditions should be avoiding situations that could result in that condition killing them. Most people would understand that instinctively.

hatrickpatrick · 21-10-2016 03:23PM

Jimoslimos wrote: »

Actually her actions in blaming the airline make this more likely - all that happens will be airlines end up introducing more stringent and complicated measures for passengers with CF and COPD.

Or they could, y'know, not leave people locked inside for two feckin' hours longer than they were supposed to be, because of delays. Would it have been so hard just to open the bloody door for a bit?

You get the same crap on Irish Rail trains when it's hot and they stop for no reason in the middle of nowhere. It's obviously not as bad because you can open the windows, but even without anybody being ill, leaving people stuck inside a pressurised cabin with recycled air for that length of time when there is another option - to open the doors until the plane is actually ready to take off - is absolutely unacceptable.

The illness in this case obviously exacerbates why it's unacceptable but in my view it's just unacceptable regardless.

idunno78 · 21-10-2016 03:32PM

bucketybuck wrote: »

Isn't it great that flying to the other end of the planet just because you want to is considered "normal", what a wondrous modern age we live in!

Regardless of that, your point is rather inane. Sure it would be nice if life was all sunshine and roses and everybody could do what they wanted regardless of circumstances, but in the real world people with certain medical conditions should be avoiding situations that could result in that condition killing them. Most people would understand that instinctively.

I have CF. I have flown to over and back to Australia twice. With no stopovers. America 4/5 times and every time been fine. Maybe if you were in my shoes you would have a different outlook. But your not luckily for you! I'm not going to not do things I want to just because i have CF. I don't know how long I have so while I can do things I will.

Edit-Also it never entered my head flying could kill me nor was I ever told it could.

bucketybuck · 21-10-2016 03:41PM

idunno78 wrote: »

I have CF. I have flown to over and back to Australia twice. With no stopovers. America 4/5 times and every time been fine. Maybe if you were in my shoes you would have a different outlook. But your not luckily for you! I'm not going to not do things I want to just because i have CF. I don't know how long I have so while I can do things I will.

Edit-Also it never entered my head flying could kill me nor was I ever told it could.

If I were in your shoes I would still have a pragmatic view of how the real world works, I just wouldn't know what a fallacy of the excluded middle was.

I'm curious though, now that you do know the dangers, if you were to fly back to Australia and then got ill would you blame the airline?

jackofalltrades · 21-10-2016 03:54PM

Grayson wrote: »

The APU recycles air. There's a higher level of CO2 in it. But it's even higher when it's on the ground because the engines aren't on. Normally air is sucked in through the engines, cooled and sent to the cabin. When the engines aren't on the air isn't sucked in. So what she was breathing was air of a lower quality than she would have been breathing when the plane was in flight.

She was cleared to fly to Australia. That meant that she was cleared to spend time in a plane at altitude. Not in a plane on the ground.

I'm not saying that airline are to blame, I'm saying that they may be.

The APU doesn't recycle the air.
It provides a bleed air source to the air conditioning system(ACMs) when the main engines aren't running.
Fresh air is still being introduced into the cabin.
From my understanding of it CO2 levels are higher whilst on the ground.
But are still expected to be within predefined limits.
And from results of FAA testing are usually well within these.

If the lady in question has an issue with CO2 levels, then the test needs to be expanded to include simulating waiting on the ground.
Which lets face it is an inevitable and predictable part of flying.
But as I've previously touched on I'm guessing there's a trade off between the patients safety and practicality/cost/people having a normal life.
In which case situations like this can happen.
Either way airlines will be accused of not doing enough or being too strict.

idunno78 · 21-10-2016 03:55PM

bucketybuck wrote: »

I'm curious though, now that you do know the dangers, if you were to fly back to Australia and then got ill would you blame the airline?

Honestly I probably wouldn't blame anybody, just put it down to extremely bad luck. Be happy I was alive and kicking.
But then again, as in any situation, ya don't know what you would do unless it happened.

bucketybuck · 21-10-2016 04:03PM

idunno78 wrote: »

But then again, as in any situation, ya don't know what you would do unless it happened.

You don't know until it happens, but going back to my original point, if you know there is a possibility of something happening you really need to decide if whatever you are doing is really necessary. This girl clearly knew there could be medical consequences, her actions beforehand show this, so did she really need to let this happen at all?

And no, I don't accept that flying to Australia is part of simply living a "normal" life, there are many, many alternatives to that particular trip that wouldn't have involved rolling the dice with her health.

is this woman right to say the airline "essentially" poisoned her?

Comments