View Full Version : EVA Air's 777, continues to destination with injured PAX after turbulence encounter!

30th Nov 2017, 04:49

Eva Air plane to Chicago in chaos after severe turbulence | Daily Mail Online (http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-5113637/Plane-carrying-199-people-chaos-severe-turbulence.html)

Thought I'd post this here. Didn't hear a peep on other outlets. 11 people injured after encountering severe turbulence. The flight continued with injured pax and crew on board for another 10-11 hours to the destination.

Trying to get an idea, what the community here thinks. We were trained to divert to the closest suitable airport in such scenarios! EVA Air takes pride in being one of the safest airlines in the world, but this doesn't make sense at all!

30th Nov 2017, 05:24
I suppose it depends on the extent of the injuries. Bruises and sprains according to the article. Most airlines have medlink for advice if necessary.

Were you trained to divert to the nearest suitable airport for bruises and sprains with advice from a doctor on board?

30th Nov 2017, 06:05
^^ What he said. . I could stub my toe and call it an injury. Doesn't warrant a diversion.

If the injuries where minor and medical advice was to continue then I don't see an issue. It may well have been the case that the 11 pax involved where more than happy to continue as well.

Capn Bloggs
30th Nov 2017, 07:11
Didn't hear a peep on other outlets.
There's a message there...

30th Nov 2017, 08:22
According to an initial report released by Taiwan’s Aviation Safety Council on Friday, the injured “suffered abrasion and contusion injuries” and one of the cabin crew was dealt “a serious injury,” although the extent of that injury wasn’t detailed.

From the first link posted above. Daily Mail link pointless, not sure why anyone things this clickbait site has anything serious to offer, ever.

25th Dec 2017, 06:09
Most of the output on aviation in the British tabloid press is a waste of bandwidth.

25th Dec 2017, 08:21
Perhaps the injured were included in the decision making under good CRM protocols and expressed wishes to continue.

compressor stall
25th Dec 2017, 10:17
If I was not overly seriously hurt with on an aircraft heading to my home country I might wish to hang on get it treated and recuperate in my home country rather than some tinpot enroute nation, no matter how good medlink’s suggestion.

25th Dec 2017, 11:04
"Tinpot nations" Japan and Canada?

The Ancient Geek
25th Dec 2017, 14:59
If I were an injured passenger I would seriously consider the cost of getting home, especially as a medevec, against the chances of my condition getting significantly worse in the hours it takes to get home.

Emergency diversion should only be considered when medical advice requires urgent hospitalisation.

26th Dec 2017, 16:53
8 of the injured were CC, out of 13 on board. If that only leaves 5 fully functioning CC for 11 hours of flight (bearing in mind some injuries to pax too) then I'd be thinking quite hard about heading back home.

26th Dec 2017, 18:16
It may well have left 13 functional cabin crew ... a bruise or a bump doesn't prevent you wheeling a drinks trolley.

26th Dec 2017, 19:09
True...but that's not the only reason there are cabin crew aboard.

26th Dec 2017, 23:59
Quite. If you’ve got 8 CC nursing twisted ankles or wrists then things are going to turn unpleasant in the event of an evac or decompression when you need them all. It’s a far-fetched idea that Murphy will strike twice, I know, but it’s something to consider with 11 hours to go.

27th Dec 2017, 02:39
Well, if that being the case, an immediate diversion to the nearest suitable does not guarantee an evacuation or decompression will not happen either. ;)

27th Dec 2017, 06:32
I think you've rather missed the OP's point.

27th Dec 2017, 08:56
In many jurisdictions, ANY injury to flight crew or cabin crew is reportable. That includes a cut lip, split finger nail etc if caused by eg turbulence. We havent a clue what the injuries were so the entire thread is mere speculation.