Man ‘chokes to death eating Jetstar meal’
Heimlich Manoeuvre
Begs the question why nobody, including the crew applied the Heimlich Maneuver.
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Perth
Posts: 503
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Most authorities changed their advice about five years ago.
Nothing beats the old wack .......fair and square between the shoulder chops with full force.
This (hopefully) should dislodge any foreign object from the throat.
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: some dive
Posts: 448
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Boomerang.
Go back and reread the post. You obviously have an issue with basic comprehension. At no point is it mentioned that I took the piss out of the cabin crew for placing the body up the front.
The amateurish halfwits are the management, structure and system that refuse to provide basic 'tools' for crew to do their job. To have a dead body sitting in a seat for nearly eleven hours leaking bodily fluids when passing right across a first world country with appropriate facilities is not only a disgrace, but a serious health issue. It would be a different kettle of fish if they were sitting in the middle of the Pacific.
Go back and reread the post. You obviously have an issue with basic comprehension. At no point is it mentioned that I took the piss out of the cabin crew for placing the body up the front.
The amateurish halfwits are the management, structure and system that refuse to provide basic 'tools' for crew to do their job. To have a dead body sitting in a seat for nearly eleven hours leaking bodily fluids when passing right across a first world country with appropriate facilities is not only a disgrace, but a serious health issue. It would be a different kettle of fish if they were sitting in the middle of the Pacific.
No disrespect to the deceased but I would have thought that locked in a toilet with some judicious and careful use of restraints would be better than in the passenger cabin, leaking fluids.
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Down South
Posts: 46
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Ahhhh, disapointented again to read the headline and realise it wasn't one of the two CEO's or a board member.
Its a sad passing to the passenger involved and his partner. I'm sure the crew did all they could with the limited resources offered on a plane in flight.
Its a sad passing to the passenger involved and his partner. I'm sure the crew did all they could with the limited resources offered on a plane in flight.
Join Date: Mar 2011
Location: East
Posts: 186
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
That's a bit of an effort to get a body strapped to the lav.
You could put a few infant belt's together but you still dont really have an anchor point to strap him to.
Doubt it would be appreciated if you popped him on the loo unrestrained and just closed the door.
You could put a few infant belt's together but you still dont really have an anchor point to strap him to.
Doubt it would be appreciated if you popped him on the loo unrestrained and just closed the door.
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Kerikeri, New Zealand or Noosa Queensland. Depending on the time of year!
Age: 84
Posts: 273
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Captain Gidday wrote:
Well it was over 15 years ago that I used it, but then again nothing in life is constant, except change itself. The bottom line is that at the time it worked.
The Heimlich Maneuver is no longer regarded as the best intervention for an obstruction in the windpipe. Most authorities changed their advice about five years ago.
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: gold coast QLD australia
Age: 86
Posts: 1,345
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I have "logged" 17 deaths and three babies born in my career, and each one was incredibly traumatic for the cabin crew. TAA did carry body bags for a while, but where to put them was always a problem. We had one Captain die, and one Flight Engineer, so just left them where they were until arrival, but dreadful for the F/O, and ditto for the crew of the deceased Flighty. The births were just as traumatic, but joyful in the end, one little bloke made his appearance over Glen Innes, so was immediately named Glen, the other two were girls, and both named after the cabin managers who fortunately were both trained nursing sisters. Interesting to note that upon each birth there was a hat sent around to collect from pax and crew and all contributed happily for the bewildered but thankful parents.
Join Date: Nov 2008
Location: Oz
Posts: 148
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Ratpoison,
My apologies. Your phrasing came across as critical when you said "another 10 hours", like it was too long for the guy to be left there... I posted tired and misread it. (Still no reason to make insults about my intelligence; asking me to re-read would have sufficed btw.)
If you'd clarified then that the "amateurish halfwits" you're referring to are Management then I would agree. But that's for another thread.
Placing someone in a lav is strictly prohibited in the manual. We were told in ground school that this was learnt the hard way when bodies then became completely lodged & immovable without great effort (and damage) due to rigor mortis- even taking off the doors wasn't enough in some cases. Also, putting someone in a lav is hardly respectful. As hard as it may be on the other pax, a seat/row of seats is the best option.
While QF don't carry a mortality kit, they do have a bodily fluids kit which could be utilised to minimise any spillage. However, I agree that they should have them, at least on the long haul fleet.
The issue of not having anywhere dedicated is a space/utilisation one; as far as I know SQ is the only airline in the world to have opted for a specific place to carry a deceased body (I have seen it). Not even EK have this, and they have the highest rate of onboard deaths of any airline worldwide. (Mainly due to the routes & pax numbers that they fly, before any of you freak out about flying with them)
I have heard it said that in many cases where a doctor has pronounced death, it is often the best option to carry on to the intended destination, as the bereaved family would usually have arrangements in place for accommodation and/or relatives there, whereas diverting could traumatise them even further, being in an unintended and unfamiliar place. Ditto on the other pax who are probably also traumatised if they witnessed, as wel las other considerations (yes commercial in some cases, others may be things like access to company staff to offer support, EAP programs in airline bases as opposed to outstations, availability of replacement crew instead of expecting the already upset crew to wait for the pax to be handed over, if the diversion airport is not a company port and/or understaffed. Of course the ideal would be to divert but I don't think it would always necessarily be the best option...
My apologies. Your phrasing came across as critical when you said "another 10 hours", like it was too long for the guy to be left there... I posted tired and misread it. (Still no reason to make insults about my intelligence; asking me to re-read would have sufficed btw.)
If you'd clarified then that the "amateurish halfwits" you're referring to are Management then I would agree. But that's for another thread.
Placing someone in a lav is strictly prohibited in the manual. We were told in ground school that this was learnt the hard way when bodies then became completely lodged & immovable without great effort (and damage) due to rigor mortis- even taking off the doors wasn't enough in some cases. Also, putting someone in a lav is hardly respectful. As hard as it may be on the other pax, a seat/row of seats is the best option.
While QF don't carry a mortality kit, they do have a bodily fluids kit which could be utilised to minimise any spillage. However, I agree that they should have them, at least on the long haul fleet.
The issue of not having anywhere dedicated is a space/utilisation one; as far as I know SQ is the only airline in the world to have opted for a specific place to carry a deceased body (I have seen it). Not even EK have this, and they have the highest rate of onboard deaths of any airline worldwide. (Mainly due to the routes & pax numbers that they fly, before any of you freak out about flying with them)
I have heard it said that in many cases where a doctor has pronounced death, it is often the best option to carry on to the intended destination, as the bereaved family would usually have arrangements in place for accommodation and/or relatives there, whereas diverting could traumatise them even further, being in an unintended and unfamiliar place. Ditto on the other pax who are probably also traumatised if they witnessed, as wel las other considerations (yes commercial in some cases, others may be things like access to company staff to offer support, EAP programs in airline bases as opposed to outstations, availability of replacement crew instead of expecting the already upset crew to wait for the pax to be handed over, if the diversion airport is not a company port and/or understaffed. Of course the ideal would be to divert but I don't think it would always necessarily be the best option...
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: Bottom half of the world...
Posts: 38
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
From what I have heard, he had a previous heart problem, and initial thoughts are he had a heart attack.Once again the media have made a mess of this. The Dr was onto him very quickly, and the crew did a very good job. The body was taken out of view and placed in a crewrest area. The girlfriend asked to stay with the deceased until landing in Akl. As jetstar /qantas don't carry body bags, they managed a bad situation very well. (yes they do have spill/fluid response kits, but they were not needed)
No I don't work with this mob, but I do know the crew involved, and overall they managed it very well.
No I don't work with this mob, but I do know the crew involved, and overall they managed it very well.
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Kerikeri, New Zealand or Noosa Queensland. Depending on the time of year!
Age: 84
Posts: 273
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Boomerang_Butt Wrote:
On June 18th 1991 I was in command of an SQ flight Rome to Bangkok with a flight time of 10.5 hours. The aircraft was a 747-300 series with a "J" Class Upperdeck.
Just over two hours into the flight we experienced a medical emergency which quickly ended in death of the passenger.
With a full flight and no spare seats available I ordered my IFS to have the body wrapped in blankets and moved to the crew bunk, which was located in a compartment at the rear of the upperdeck cabin.
On arrival Bangkok it took over two hours for me to deal with the ensuing paperwork, police and health department.
I heard later that a rumour had spread that from that day on the aircraft was considered haunted and some of the local crew would no longer use the bunk.
Maybe SQ's current policy is designed to avoid any future ghosts
as far as I know SQ is the only airline in the world to have opted for a specific place to carry a deceased body (I have seen it).
Just over two hours into the flight we experienced a medical emergency which quickly ended in death of the passenger.
With a full flight and no spare seats available I ordered my IFS to have the body wrapped in blankets and moved to the crew bunk, which was located in a compartment at the rear of the upperdeck cabin.
On arrival Bangkok it took over two hours for me to deal with the ensuing paperwork, police and health department.
I heard later that a rumour had spread that from that day on the aircraft was considered haunted and some of the local crew would no longer use the bunk.
Maybe SQ's current policy is designed to avoid any future ghosts
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: Hicksville, Alabama
Posts: 171
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
According to a report I just heard on the radio, it appears that JQ carry defribilators onboard, and this was used to try and revive the patient...unfortunately to no avail in this instance.
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: In My Imagination
Posts: 55
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
A defib is no help whatsoever if someone's heart has stopped. It will only work if the heart is suspended in a fibrillating state. I feel for everyone involved, I am sure they did the best they could.
Join Date: Feb 1999
Location: The Orion Arm
Posts: 118
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
It is possible to restart a heart that is in asystole using a defibrillator provided other interventions (e.g. intra-cardiac adrenaline, CPR) are also applied with absolutely no delay, and the cause of the asystole is known. In this case that would be unlikely, but it is a moot point, because if asystole has just occurred, it is impossible to diagnose without an ECG observation of a "flat line". A combination of CPR and intra-cardiac drugs can induce a rhythm that will respond to defibrillation. Many onboard defibrillators are automatic and don't have the same functionality (including ECG monitoring) as clinical defibrillators, therefore if asystole was present, the crew would not have known it, so the attempt to restart the heart using a defibrillator was appropriate.
Last edited by deadhead; 5th Sep 2011 at 11:08.
Join Date: Nov 2008
Location: Oz
Posts: 148
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
No probs Rat. Seems in this case there WERE more elements at play than the media suggested (surprise surprise)
In my opinion it's not a good idea to use bunks for this purpose as the crew should have access to them should the need arise (very likely after an event like this- they would need somewhere to take some time apart if indeed the flight did not divert and it was a long one.) Or, to discuss things with the family in privacy if there is nowhere else suitable.
Allowing the family member to remain with the body is always recommended if possible; it helps the acceptance and grieving process. It seems to me that some comments on media articles think they forced her to do this or it was a bad idea.
In cases where the person has had to be placed in a galley area, the family member would always be allowed to remain there so long as it was safe to do so- so they would go back to their seat for landing.
If medical professionals were involved they would hold a discussion with the family after the event (time permitting) to explain what actions were taken and why, and explain why the person could not be saved if that is the case.
Seems to me that everyone did exactly what they should have done, on the information that we have to hand. I think it's extremely uncalled for to make comments about the (lack of) ability of the crew since we clearly don't have the full story here.
In my opinion it's not a good idea to use bunks for this purpose as the crew should have access to them should the need arise (very likely after an event like this- they would need somewhere to take some time apart if indeed the flight did not divert and it was a long one.) Or, to discuss things with the family in privacy if there is nowhere else suitable.
Allowing the family member to remain with the body is always recommended if possible; it helps the acceptance and grieving process. It seems to me that some comments on media articles think they forced her to do this or it was a bad idea.
In cases where the person has had to be placed in a galley area, the family member would always be allowed to remain there so long as it was safe to do so- so they would go back to their seat for landing.
If medical professionals were involved they would hold a discussion with the family after the event (time permitting) to explain what actions were taken and why, and explain why the person could not be saved if that is the case.
Seems to me that everyone did exactly what they should have done, on the information that we have to hand. I think it's extremely uncalled for to make comments about the (lack of) ability of the crew since we clearly don't have the full story here.
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: In My Imagination
Posts: 55
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Deadhead, I wan't implying the use of the defib was inappropriate, quite the contrary. I was just pointing out that the machine will only give a shock if it can pick up some activity and in this case, it appears there wasn't any. I would ALWAYS commence CPR, I would NEVER assume anything. I know we carry adrenaline on QF, but I believe MedLink need to okay the use to a registered physician before they are able to use it, which I guess defeats the purpose in this situation??? BTW, I heard a rumour a few years back that crew on a EK flight were forced to perform CPR for several hours bc the Captain was unwillingly to call the death..... any truth to this? Apparently the crew were given a few months of leave to deal with the effect this had on them.
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: in the classroom of life
Age: 55
Posts: 6,864
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like
on
1 Post
Apparently the crew were given a few months of leave to deal with the effect this had on them.
I have done this for an hour myself.....and failed
and i did not need two months off work. And the patient was my father, I was 22 at the time.
AustralianMade
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: Out in the weather!
Age: 54
Posts: 917
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
deadhead,
Asystole is not shockable. If effective CPR is applied and some elctrical activity returns (by definition, the heart is no longer in asystole), then a shock me be of use.
The AEDs used by first-aiders will not recommend a shock for asystole.
ABX
It is possible to restart a heart that is in asystole using a defibrillator provided other interventions (e.g. intra-cardiac adrenaline, CPR) are also applied...
The AEDs used by first-aiders will not recommend a shock for asystole.
ABX