MANCHESTER AIRPORT 17/11/09

The fire trucks were there because of the over weight landing only. It is a standard proceedure.There was no problem with the aircraft. The fire crews followed the aircraft to stand because the brakes would have been very hot. Normaly the aircraft would wait out on the taxi way to let them cool off a bit but they were trying to get the poor little mite to hospital ASAP.
The reverser had nothing to do with it. That was just one of those “Murphy’s law” things. My spy tells me that the reverser was restowed, tested and found to be OK

Rgds Cking

I refer you to your own post 17.

However, I would respectfully suggest that whatever problem you saw with the aircraft pales into insignificance when tempered with the knowledge that the child who was the reason for the medical diversion has since died, wouldn’t you?

Regards,

kev35

It’s very sad news that the passenger died and somehow it always seems worse when it is a child. A very traumatic experience for everyone involved.

But if we are to be pedantic, Runway 32 is still wrong as in the original post he says it was an aircraft leaving MAN which returned when it was, according to others, a flight which originated in Paris.

Regards,

kev35

Kev35 if you look at post no 3 this has already been pointed out!

Thanks for your help in answering my original questions for any info regarding this AA flight. Your help has been most useful!;)

It’s very sad news that the passenger died and somehow it always seems worse when it is a child. A very traumatic experience for everyone involved.

But if we are to be pedantic, Runway 32 is still wrong as in the original post he says it was an aircraft leaving MAN which returned when it was, according to others, a flight which originated in Paris.

Regards,

kev35

Very sad news with regards to the child.:eek:

I think Grey Area will now agree that I obviously saw that there was a problem as well with the ac after landing hense why all the emergency services followed the ac to its stand.:p

Indeed so.

A problem caused or aggravated by the overweight emergency landing, no doubt. :p

The MEN reported that the child died:(

My spy in the camp tells me that all it was was a medical divert. The aircraft did land overweight, hench the fire engine. to add to their woes one of the reverser halves did not stow when de selected. Both the CF-6 and the CFM-56 reversers have a left and a right half that normaly operate together. Some times one side does not do what the other one does, either stays stowed or refuses to stow. If one half stays deployed that engine will not be able to get above idle. Happens every now and again, a pain in the a~~e for us as we have to fix it:D

Rgds Cking

Very sad news with regards to the child.:eek:

I think Grey Area will now agree that I obviously saw that there was a problem as well with the ac after landing hense why all the emergency services followed the ac to its stand.:p

I am far from trying to start rumours.

I was at the AVP and this to me looked more than a medical divert.

You would not usually see five or more fire engines following an ac for a medical divert and you would certainly not see part of the engine housing missing.

I am not trying to disagree that this was a medical divert but I do think there is more to it!!

The MEN reported that the child died:(

My spy in the camp tells me that all it was was a medical divert. The aircraft did land overweight, hench the fire engine. to add to their woes one of the reverser halves did not stow when de selected. Both the CF-6 and the CFM-56 reversers have a left and a right half that normaly operate together. Some times one side does not do what the other one does, either stays stowed or refuses to stow. If one half stays deployed that engine will not be able to get above idle. Happens every now and again, a pain in the a~~e for us as we have to fix it:D

Rgds Cking

But to face a dire medical emergency with limited training and equipment (and a prayer that there’s a Doctor amongst the passengers) shows a level of professionalism rarely equalled. And then, after dropping off the passenger, continuing with the rest of the flight to its original destination?

I remember some years ago having to deal with a lady who’d had a heart attack. Defib, CPR, medical advice centre (which we would use rather than PA for a doctor) on the radio, oxygen, drugs, etc. We ended up diverting which included briefing the pax that rear doors were not usable in an emergency (as patient was on the floor in the rear galley).

Customs formalities dealt with, we handed the patient over to paramedics, set off again and within 15 minutes I was serving lunch in business class. Funny job really!

I’m glad to say the lady survived and by coincidence I have carried her on another flight since.

On the subject of disclaimers, we have the opposite, a letter advising that so long as a doctor can prove their qualifications they are indemnified for the results of their actions or law-suits arrising from them.

1L.

I have seen the disclaimer form that a Doctor has to sign BEFORE recieving the Doctor’s medical kit carried onboard one of our tour operators aircraft. I wouldn’t blaim them for not having anuthing to do with it!
Rgds Cking

Actually that disclaimer form has nothing to do with accepting responsibility for the patient.
In the doctor´s kit carried aboard passengers aircraft is a lot of stuff, that only medically trained persons are allowed to mess with. What the doctor is doing when he signs the form is accepting responsibility for the medical kit and it´s contents. Not, in anyway, is he/she accepting responsibility for the wellfare of the patient. That is simply impossible with the limited facilities onboard an aircraft.

The doctors medical kit is a sealed metal box kept at a discreat location on board the aircraft. Do not confuse with what are effectively simply first aid kits dotted around the cabin for use by flight attendants to address minor things (like headace, diahrea etc etc.).

Don’t hold your breath on that one!
In this “where’s there’s blaim there’s a claim” society would a doctor make himself known?
I have seen the disclaimer form that a Doctor has to sign BEFORE recieving the Doctor’s medical kit carried onboard one of our tour operators aircraft. I wouldn’t blaim them for not having anuthing to do with it!

Rgds Cking

My ex was a dr and was called upon once, he was gutted because he wanted a nice upgrade to business class, and all they gave him was a small bottle of champagne and sent him back to his seat!

As for not having anything to do with it, I don’t know about other nations, but a UK dr is not allowed to refuse to treat a patient presented to them, so disclaimer or not, under the GMC rules they have no choice. I’m fairly certain the same applies to US doctors.

(and a prayer that there’s a Doctor amongst the passengers)
kev35

Don’t hold your breath on that one!
In this “where’s there’s blaim there’s a claim” society would a doctor make himself known?
I have seen the disclaimer form that a Doctor has to sign BEFORE recieving the Doctor’s medical kit carried onboard one of our tour operators aircraft. I wouldn’t blaim them for not having anuthing to do with it!

Rgds Cking

It’s bad enough when someone goes off in a hospital ward with fully trained staff and all the necessary equipment to hand. I know because I’ve been involved. But to face a dire medical emergency with limited training and equipment (and a prayer that there’s a Doctor amongst the passengers) shows a level of professionalism rarely equalled. And then, after dropping off the passenger, continuing with the rest of the flight to its original destination?

Perhaps it’s like a number of other professions, their skills, effenciency and dedication are only truly appreciated when things go wrong.

Regards,

kev35

I’m given to understand that the unfortunate passenger is seriously ill in hospital, Kev.

Cor!

There will be wars and rumours of wars……

Rather than worry about Runway 32’s obvious case of mistaken identity, has he any idea of whether or not the passenger survived? I would have thought that was the priority?

Regards,

kev35

I am far from trying to start rumours.

I was at the AVP and this to me looked more than a medical divert.

You would not usually see five or more fire engines following an ac for a medical divert and you would certainly not see part of the engine housing missing.

I am not trying to disagree that this was a medical divert but I do think there is more to it!!

The captain declared a medical emergency.

He was in the cockpit whereas you were in the AVP, so I think we can agree that his knowledge of the situation was rather better than yours.

The fire brigade were out because the aircraft was making an overweight landing, with a strong risk of burst tires and brake fires.

The aircraft was overweight because there isn’t time to mess about dumping fuel with an acute medical emergency.

And that’s all there is to it, whether you like it or not.

DavidS is bang on the money, folks.

It was a AAL41 CDG-ORD on a medical diversion and nothing to do with the aircraft whatsoever, runway 32.

A bit more thought might be in order in the future please, chaps. This is how rumours start, and you never know quite who’s looking in.

I am far from trying to start rumours.

I was at the AVP and this to me looked more than a medical divert.

You would not usually see five or more fire engines following an ac for a medical divert and you would certainly not see part of the engine housing missing.

I am not trying to disagree that this was a medical divert but I do think there is more to it!!

This was the ac however on landing the fire briggade were out in force and there was definetly a problem with the port side engine – missing something from the engine housing around the opening for the reverse thrust!

Just out of interest, where did that information come from?

Paul

DavidS is bang on the money, folks.

It was a AAL41 CDG-ORD on a medical diversion and nothing to do with the aircraft whatsoever, runway 32.

A bit more thought might be in order in the future please, chaps. This is how rumours start, and you never know quite who’s looking in.

This was the ac however on landing the fire briggade were out in force and there was definetly a problem with the port side engine – missing something from the engine housing around the opening for the reverse thrust!

AA41 Paris to Chicago diverted in with a sick pax. Maybe what you saw…..Check http://avherald.com/