Airline kicking family off of a plane for cut on child's face

[strake]

Can this possibly be as simple as reported?

If so, it would appear to be something of an overreaction..if that isn't something of an understatement..:p

Family ordered off easyJet flight because daughter had small cut on her cheek... and the pilot thought 'cabin pressure' would make it worse | Mail Online (http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2345867/Family-ordered-easyJet-flight-daughter-small-cut-cheek--pilot-thought-cabin-pressure-make-worse.html)

[Steve6443]

Here (http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2345867/Family-ordered-easyJet-flight-daughter-small-cut-cheek--pilot-thought-cabin-pressure-make-worse.html) is a report of a pilot refusing to allow a family to fly because the daughter had a cut on her face. The question is - is this a sensationalist story or was the captain justified to throw someone off of a plane for having a cut on (eg) their face?

Now, I've seen a family refused a flight back from Alicante because one of the family was suffering with Chicken Pox and didn't have a medical clearance from the doctor; obviously you don't want someone with a contagious disease on a plane but kicking a family off for a cut - is that justified? What's the reasoning?

I'd like to hear a professional's comments because if the pressure is the issue, it's regulated to the same as if I were to fly a spam can at FL85. So does that mean I should not be flying too high with my family if one of my daughters has an open cut? Thanks.....

[Speed of Sound]

easyJet says the decision was taken in the best interests of the child as her injury could have got worse during the flight.


Neither easyjet nor the captain were qualified to make that assessment.

They should pay up, now that a medically qualified person has said that she was OK to fly.

[Artie Fufkin]

The clue is that this article appears in The Daily Mail....

[dazdaz1]

I could well understand the reason of the Captain's decision. I was once advised not to fly (my dentist) until a course of antibiotics took effect for a gum/tooth abscess. Jokingly, he said my gum could 'spurt out' fluids :ooh:

[Steve6443]

The clue is that this article appears in The Daily Mail....

Personally speaking, I couldn't give a *** if it appeared in the Sun.

The reason for my posting is because I want to know if there is seriously any risk of taking someone for a flight with an open wound in a spam can to (e.g.) FL85, as that's the pressure a normal airliner would be held at.

[Basil]

Can't help feeling that the report doesn't tell the whole story.

[Artie Fufkin]

I couldn't give a *** if it appeared in the Sun.

The point being The Mail is renowned for its sensationalism. If you think The Mail is a sensible and objective newspaper take a look at the "news" articles on the right hand side of the website. Its utter drivel. "Lourdes has stopped talking to me and Rocco's looking at girl's butts" Madonna reveals her parenting struggles"


Maybe the captain was right to offload, maybe not. We don't know the pertinent facts. By the fact it was reported in The Daily Mail, we know we do not have a professional and objective piece of journalism.

[Capetonian]

I've just discussed this over a drink with a friend who's a doctor and who flies a lot. He says it's complete tosh and even a decompression would not have presented a danger if it were, as it seems, a slight abrasion or cut.

I would suspect that there is a lot more to this than is being published.

[Greek God]

Perhaps the little girl had the accident immediately prior to the flight and her mother brought the injury to the attention of the cabin crew herself. It's also possible that with the eye socket swelling the little girl appeared drowsy and unresponsive so there might have been concern about the head injury rather than the cut?
" hello my little girl has just fallen over and banged her head will she be ok to fly?" Err ...... Now who's responsible if something untoward develops?

[blue up]

Neither easyjet nor the captain were qualified to make that assessment.

Quite agree. Send them off to see a doctor before they can board?

[edi_local]

Neither easyjet nor the captain were qualified to make that assessment.

They should pay up, now that a medically qualified person has said that she was OK to fly.

SoS


Surely the airline and especially the pilot of the aircraft can decide who they want to carry. The pilot is in control of the aircraft and they can decide who flies and who doesn't. If the "medically qualified person" wasn't present at the time of the incident then why should they be trusted more than a pilot who is going to have at least a basic level of first aid understanding and is more than competent enough to know when someone shouldn't be on an aircraft.

There is clearly more to this story then the mail reports. Do you honestly think a pilot would purposely make the wrong decision which could then affect their job over nothing?

[HEATHROW DIRECTOR]

I hardly believe that they were "kicked off". Where does this nonsense come from?

[Agaricus bisporus]

I hardly believe that they were "kicked off".

They weren't. They were kicked "off of":ugh:

[Sunnyjohn]

Thread already running on Rumours and News

[strake]

Being pedantic, it was actually already running here. I felt it was a Passenger & SLF issue but happy for it to be closed here.

[ExXB]

Article 2 of Regulation 261:

(j) ‘denied boarding’ means a refusal to carry passengers on a flight, although they have presented themselves for boarding under the conditions laid down in Article 3(2), except where there are reasonable grounds to deny them boarding, such as reasons of health, safety or security, or inadequate travel documentation;

So if there were 'reasonable grounds' they are in the clear.

[racedo]

I think the crew made the correct decision based on consideration of the health of the passenger.

They are not doctors BUT a cut like this particularly close to the eye could have implications for the eye or behind the eye which may have not shown up immediately. It was a recent injury so they made a good call.

I applaud the crew for taking a difficult decision under what was likely lots of emotional pressure with crying child, pregnant mum etc. :D:D

Requesting they see a medical professional before flying make sense and frankly I wonder why this wasn't done anyway.

[J.O.]

Another tempest in a teapot compliments of the Daily Snail.

[HEATHROW DIRECTOR]

<<kicked "off of">>

I doubt anyone "kicked" anyone old chap.

[Hotel Tango]

This does not require endless debate. The Captain was entirely justified in making his decision. Gutter press sensationalism of the highest order!

[con-pilot]

In today's world of AIDS and the HIV concerns in regards to an open wound, I would certainly hesitate loading any passenger with an open wound.

In the politically correct world of the US Department of Justice, at first if a prisoner was HIV positive and/or had AIDS, it was on their paperwork. But then it was decided in Washington that actually saying that some one had AIDS or was HIV positive, was against their civil rights.

So from then on, if a prisoner was infected, AIDS/HIV, their paperwork said to take 'universal precautions'.

And just what did 'universal precautions' mean; AIDS and/or HIV positive.

Made sense to some one, somewhere.

[steelbranch]

What??? That's one of the stupidest things I've ever read.

[AKAAB]

I've "kicked off" several ill passengers over the years. If we have any doubt as to someone's health or ability to fly safely, we have a company that consults and makes the call for us. If they say no, then you wait.

Recent issues: passenger actively throwing up...just wants to get home. Medlink says no-go until he hasn't vomited for three hours. He went out on the afternoon flight feeling much better.

Another one? Okay: If we're on the ground and your seatmate says you passed, but it's okay because you do it all the time because you have syncopy, you're not flying until you have medical clearance. We are not an air ambulance.

[GrahamO]

So presumably its an urban myth that the military fly injured people back from Afghanistan and Iraq and instead wait until they are entirely healed with not a scratch on them?

The pilot may be within his rights, but it doesn't stop him/her from acting like an idiot.

Seriously, if you want to do your professional some harm, defend the idiot and nobody will take you seriously even when you're right.

[Agaricus bisporus]

The pilot may be within his rights, but it doesn't stop him/her from acting like an idiot.

Graham Zero, as you were't there and have no knowledge whatsoever of the real circumstances you are simply not in a position to make a judgement like that.
Secondly airline pilots seldom act "like idiots". If the Captain decided not to carry someone he made the decision after careful consideration and it was his professional judgement that they should not fly. What an incredible attitude - that declining to carry a passenger on medical grounds makes someone an "idiot".

Buddy, your remarks makes you the idiot.

I will also state with certainty that the family was not "kicked off", rather they volunteered to offload themselves because one of their party could not fly which is not the same thing at all.

[Torque Tonight]

Graham, comparison to a military medevac flight with doctors, nurses, medical equipment on board is absolutely meaningless.

The Captain does have the final say over who travels and precisely because pilots are not medical professionals they may come down on the side of caution when doubt exists. If a patient does have a condition and no doctor's certificate to say they are fit to travel, then there is the possibility that the condition may deteriorate in flight, perhaps directly because of the cabin environment. In flight is not a good place to be with a medical emergency, with no medical support to hand beyond basic first aid and a significant delay before you can get medical help on the ground. Furthermore a medical diversion will incur significant cost to the airline, inconvenience to the other passengers and risk to the patient.

Could you say for certain, to the point where you are legally liable for your decision, that this baby definitely did not have underlying damage such as a fractured eye socket etc? I think we know the answer to that.

[Greek God]

You are confronted with someone who has just informed you her child has just fallen and hurt her head - visible wound and swelling and said child appears drowsy and unresponsive. No medical assistance or opinion sought. It wasn't just the cut....
What would you do???

[Di_Vosh]

The problem with this thread is that the only information on which many people are basing their position is from a news report.

However, quotes like:

So presumably its an urban myth that the military fly injured people back from Afghanistan and Iraq and instead wait until they are entirely healed with not a scratch on them?

need answering.

Are you seriously comparing a military evac flight (complete with surgeons, nurses, other medical personnel, medical equipment, etc) with a typical
easyjet flight? Are you aware of the medical facilities on a typical airliner? First aid kit, oxygen, and Flight attendents trained in their use is about it. Maybe a defibrillator. Any more serious medical assistance may be delayed for well over an hour if required in flight.

What some posters have tried to allude to is

Mechanism Of Injury.

A person presents themselves to you with a cut on their cheek. It may be recent because it is an open wound.

How did the injury happen?

Did the mechanism that caused the cut result in any other injuries?

Since it is a cut on the cheek could there be other head injuries?

Could any of those injuries present symptoms later?

Can you think of any injuries to the head that may have a negative outcome?

From bitter personal experience I can assure you that mid-flight is not the time and place to be asking yourself any of the above questions.

IMHO, the only time that a pilot would be

acting like an idiot.

would be if he/she thought that because Neither easyjet nor the captain were qualified to make that assessment. they should let them on the flight regardless.

Put simply, if in doubt:

Get a qualified medical assessment and if necessary, put them on a later flight.