|
They were not on the crust, they were embedded within the bread. These are embedded https://cimg4.ibsrv.net/gimg/pprune....d7f40f682f.jpg There is bread with sesame seeds and there is bread without. It is easy to tell no? trained to spot allergens? Pull it apart, eat a piece....ingredients are ingredients. Let me ask you this, when you go to a seafood market, when you look at a piece of Cod, do you look for a sign that says "may contain fish" ? "Allergen Warning: May contain Allergens" (you sort it out) personal responsibility |
I thought the link given by the OP was quite plain on the matter. Seems the other side of the ocean is not familiar with the use of the word "within", or its meaning.
In a statement read to court, the grieving father said: 'The sandwich was impregnated with sesame seeds, not even on top of the baguette and visible to the consumer but hidden inside the dough.' |
Originally Posted by sycamore
(Post 10258309)
Don`t the cabin crew have `walk-around` oxygen sets` for such emergencies...?
After talking about this case last night with somebody who has nursed in a U.K. A&E (“E.R.” In some parts of the world) I now understand that given what might happen to the body in a case of very severe anaphylactic shock getting an oxygen cylinder plus mask on the victim and/or simple CPR might not be enough. The measures that are then necessary to try and sustain life need to be done quickly and are not part of cabin crew training, certainly not where I work. |
As a Captain, this is - unlike many other cases - a very black and white case.
Over mainland Europe with someone slumping away, family on board who can tell about her general health and inform of her allergi, a diversion is called for. Unless it is severe weather or Low Vis all over, or the area infested with hurricanes, it is possible to be on the ground within 20 min anywhere overhead Europe's mainland. This is absolutely tragic on all accounts, and a diversion might not have changed anything, but not trying while flying where they were, is poor decision making. Safety first. |
Originally Posted by Cmon-PullUP
(Post 10258639)
As a Captain, this is - unlike many other cases - a very black and white case.
Over mainland Europe with someone slumping away, family on board who can tell about her general health and inform of her allergi, a diversion is called for. Unless it is severe weather or Low Vis all over, or the area infested with hurricanes, it is possible to be on the ground within 20 min anywhere overhead Europe's mainland. This is absolutely tragic on all accounts, and a diversion might not have changed anything, but not trying while flying where they were, is poor decision making. Safety first. minutes" on the onset of her problems, and this info would have gotten to the cockpit crew right away, then it would have been a poor decision. But we don´t know that (yet). Given the self treatment first and the fact that a MD was on board will have had an impact on the decision making at the point WHEN the cockpit was informed. Hindsight is 20/20 |
Originally Posted by wiggy
(Post 10257917)
Of course she didn’t ”deserve it,” but TBH as a parent I am really genuinely puzzled that anyone would go into an airport sandwich shop and buy an off the shelf product, regardless of labelling, when this applies to themselves or one of their family..(from the DM) : “Her father detailed for the hearing how he and his wife had trained Natasha from a young age to study ingredients and allergens and how they had changed their lifestyle to protect her from allergic reactions. Natasha was severely allergic to dairy, banana, sesame seeds and nuts, the court heard.” I wonder if anyone here with family experience of this sort of level of allergy to food products is able to comment on how they manage dietary requirements when travelling by air? That approach is fairly life-limiting - but on the other hand that person is, as far as I know, still alive. At some point you have to choose between merely staying alive and actually living. The balance of risk is very different when you have a serious medical condition. A "normal" person may pick a balance somewhere between "not getting on any type of aircraft that doesn't have 10yrs of in service safety stats" and "if you haven't flown a wingsuit you haven't lived". For other people, just getting on a plane to go on a "normal" holiday is the risk equivalent of jumping out of the plane wearing a wingsuit. There are a bunch of dead wingsuiters, mostly young, what a waste - maybe we should ban wingsuiting... or maybe we should accept that they died because they lived. |
infrequentflyer...
Interesting, many thanks for taking time to post that. |
Originally Posted by TolTol
(Post 10258401)
That’s an easy decision to make if your told right away there’s a severe medical condition onboard, so I don’t see your point.
Originally Posted by Kerosine
(Post 10258095)
..... The captain must have had some very strong reasoning not to divert into Chateauroux, Dijon, Lyon, St Etienne, Clermont Ferrand etc etc. Perhaps he wasn't told of the severity of her condition? Perhaps there were TS/CBs elsewhere?
I don't suspect we'll see all the details. That being said as soon as I receive a call of a medical situation developing I'm already setting up a diversion ready to pull the trigger. If it's looking like airways, breathing or circulation are involved, playing it safe, get on the bloody ground. Again, we don't know if much/anything was passed on to captain, and if not there's an explanation required by the CM. |
Thanks Wiggy....
|
I read this report with horror. With cpr being performed a catastrophic situation has developed. Whether the communication was flawed or the captain did not have the dm skill set to initiate an immediate diversion....With the time frame you have ory, gva, lys etc. You have to try. It should be obvious to point at the nearest concrete runway. You could not argue that the aforementioned airports are not in close proximity to top level hospitals. Tragic. |
I read this report with horror. So we could wait for the full story (which is what the Coroner will do) ...or we could simply rush to cast judgement and possibly look pretty stupid. Your choice. |
This is a rumour network, so what makes you the expletive deleted expert? A person has died, possibly preventable, conjecture is not unreasonable. I have actually been in this situation ( as captain ) and we were on the ground within 20 minutes - Paris Orly. If I were this girl’s parent I would want a few questions answered. Pompous bollox straight out of the pprune handbook. You were right about stupidity. |
Wiggy, does BA use Medlink/Medaire or whatever you want to call it? |
Conjecture having heard the whole story is not unreasonable.. I’m not sure dropping hints that the crew were deficient in the dm process or comms skills given what we know at lunchtime on Wednesday half way through the hearing is particularly helpful but as you say it is a rumour site....and if in the fullness of time we found it wasn’t optimal handled by the crew I’ll not be defending them...but TBH I don’t like lynchings on the basis of incomplete data.. Like you I’ve been “there” and had to handle similar in the real world so I guess even I am entitled to opinions on other people’s opinions...... |
Originally Posted by Chesty Morgan
(Post 10258820)
Wiggy, does BA use Medlink/Medaire or whatever you want to call it? |
When I was in BA, and I flew both Longhaul and shorthaul, MedLink was available, but was ronly really of any practical use in LH, using satcom, when you could actually speak to someone.
In SH, on the A320 aircraft, iirc, most did not even have hf radio, so to contact Medlink you had to use acars. It was just like trying to have a conversation via sms - ie absolutely pointless in an emergency. Indeed, I recall diverting in an emergency and being on the ground in 15 minutes in Europe with a very sick child. How did we decide to do that? By me as Captain and the Cabin Crew deciding that the situation warranted it - n outside or other on-board assistance. Were we right to do it - absolutely, the child survived after a lengthy stay in hospital. Does this translate to this case, we don't know. Do BA SH still have the same facilities, or better, I don't know. As others have said, it all comes down to the timeline and the quality of the information made available to the Captain from the cabin. |
Originally Posted by His dudeness
(Post 10258687)
So YOU do know when the Captain was notified and what exactly he was told ? Granted IF the father right away would have told cabin crew "she will die within
minutes" on the onset of her problems, and this info would have gotten to the cockpit crew right away, then it would have been a poor decision. But we don´t know that (yet). Given the self treatment first and the fact that a MD was on board will have had an impact on the decision making at the point WHEN the cockpit was informed. Hindsight is 20/20 If the CC hasn't told the flight deck at all about the situation, then they (CC) have failed to do their job, however it would be a very bad day for none of the 4+ crew to think about informing the pilots. When a pilot is informed about someone going unconscious with an allergic reaction, then it won't take a lot of life experience to work out this is a potential deathly situation = get on the ground asap. |
Originally Posted by wiggy
(Post 10258737)
infrequentflyer...
Interesting, many thanks for taking time to post that. https://www.anaphylaxis.org.uk/wp-co...rgy-2016v2.pdf And in the "avoiding sesame" section we have: In-store bakery products must be viewed as particularly suspect because these may be contaminated by sesame seeds from other bread. The seeds may not be obvious – they may be in the dough or on the bottom. |
An account of today's (Wednesday's) proceedings (at least in part) here:
https://www.theguardian.com/society/...abelling-rules Towards the end of the piece there is some comment about the cabin crew response and within that narrative just perhaps one or two more clues as to the timescale. |
John Harris, the head of the cabin crew, now retired, said he could not get the defibrillator because his responsibility at that stage of the flight was to cover the plane’s front door in case of an emergency. Natasha’s mother, Tanya, and 14-year-old brother, Alex, held their heads in their hands as Harris said: “Without wishing to sound harsh, covering the front door is a priority.” Mario Ballestri, crew manager, said the defibrillator was not offered because by the time Natasha was in cardiac arrest, it was time for crew to take their seats for landing. Covering the front door is "a" priority, certainly. However, in this case you have a girl who is clearly at imminent risk of death. A quick risk assessment should surely have been able to determine that the risk of an emergency requiring an evacuation was extremely low, whereas the risk of the girl dying without continued medical intervention was extremely high. As a captain, I wouldn't expect the cabin to be "secure for landing" as per SOP, as this was clearly not a "standard" situation. I'd expect the cabin crew to carry on their resuscitation efforts throughout landing and taxi in. I'm afraid I don't think that the BA crew in question are coming out of this very well at all. |
| All times are GMT. The time now is 18:41. |
Copyright © 2024 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.