Florida Attorney General To Investigate Us

[700UW]

Crist asks why Tampa quadriplegic removed from US Airways flight
Associated Press

TAMPA, Fla. - Florida Attorney General Charlie Crist said he wants an investigation into why a quadriplegic was removed from a US Airways flight as a medical risk.

US Airways defended the action Tuesday, saying it was just following proper procedures when Phil Barrett was removed from the flight in Tampa Saturday after consultation with medical advisers.

Click for Story

 

[BoeingBoy]

Person was in far worse health than he led US to believe at time of reservation.

[post="248169"][/post]​

Could be. This quote from the article - "US Airways defended the action Tuesday, saying it was just following proper procedures when Phil Barrett was removed from the flight in Tampa Saturday after consultation with medical advisers."

Presumably that would be MedLink, the "teledoc" service we subscribe to.

Some of you may remember the few posts a couple of weeks ago concerning why we had a CLT-LAS flight divert to BNA. Turns out I've known one of the F/A's on that flight for 20 years or so and saw her on my last trip. A passenger boarded looking terrible, but explained it away as caused by running from his connecting flight. His condition worsened, causing the diversion. After being deplaned, he arrested and was revived. Turns out he had had a quadruple bypass a couple of years ago, a stroke a year ago, and boarded with undiagnosed pneumonia. He's had another stroke since being admitted to the hospital following the diversion. So that's the other side of the transport/don't transport decision.

FL officials are on a "Witch Hunt" as pay back for the TPA hangar facility closing.

[post="248169"][/post]​

Doubt this, given the time that has elapsed. But a "publicity hunt" is possible.

US Airways used the narrowest and therefore least risky interpretation of the federal law governing such matters.

[post="248169"][/post]​

Probably not - see Medlink above....

Jim

 

[drifterreno]

Does U still allow pax onboard with oxygen?? Just wondering as some of the carriers have stoped doing so. Thanks

 

[flyin2low]

On CLE local news they were reporting that he required "life support" equipment. A rich couple flew him up to CLE on their private jet to get the medical that he seeked.

 

[twoturnin]

Tough call here and dont know the rules and regs concerning such---dont think we'll ever live down how a pig can get by a Capt F/O-- 5 F/A and a dispatcher for a 5 hr flt !

 

[a320av8r]

If they used MedLink, which is SOP, we have no liability as MedLink's decision is final.

 

[usfliboi]

Medlink only applies while "in flight"... I agree Piney, our employees are top notch and from a human only stand point would never do anything but give great care.

 

[a320av8r]

No, MedLink is used in ALL situations.
I'll quote the FOM if you'd like.

 

[PSA1979]

Medlink only applies while "in flight"... I agree Piney, our employees are top notch and from a human only stand point would never do anything but give great care.

[post="248207"][/post]​

Wrong, wrong, wrong, Medlink can and is used on the ground, at the gate, and crew members can use it while on an overnight if fallen ill. They teach that in recurrent. Are you sure you are a flight attendant?

 

[700UW]

Ah the devious one is shown not to be what he claims once again.

 

[robbedagain]

iagree with you Piney. i also wish that pax a full and speedy recovery

 

[Hope777]

Does U still allow pax onboard with oxygen?? Just wondering as some of the carriers have stoped doing so. Thanks

[post="248195"][/post]​

USAirways does allow use of on board oxygen. However, a passenger CAN NOT bring thier own on. They MUST purchase it from USAirways.

 

[Twicebaked]

USAirways does allow use of on board oxygen. However, a passenger CAN NOT bring thier own on. They MUST purchase it from USAirways.

[post="248232"][/post]​

5.4.1 of the Flight Attendant Emergency Manual states:

The following passengers are not acceptable for transportation.

(AT THE TOP OF THIS LIST IS....)

A passenger requiring use of a Life support system during flight or constant oxygen except if they meet guidelines for Inflight Medical Oxygen.

(THIS PASSENGER WAS ON LIFE SUPPORT)

What are the guidelines you ask?

14CFR part 121.574 (FAR)

Has requested oxygen at least 48 before departure....
.....has an attendant....

A passenger is NOT permitted to carry on their own personal oxygen supply. ONLY unit's provided by US Airways may be used onboard.


Bottom line here is that US did NOTHING wrong according to Federal Aviation Regulations. It seems that his denial was mainly due to the fact that he did not order oxygen from US Airways far enough in advance and wanted to use his own.

Was US only being money hungry? NO! FAA does NOT allow pax to bring on their own supply. WHY? Because who knows what might actually be in there. There could be an explosive device in there. ( I know oxygen is flammable, but you know what I am saying)

Vedict? Innocent

 

[SKY HIGH]

(THIS PASSENGER WAS ON LIFE SUPPORT)
Vedict? Innocent


Sky high states: (portion of article)
For 3 years, Barrett has been waiting for a surgery that will allow him to breathe on his own. A quadriplegic since a diving accident 13 years ago, Barrett must now use a ventilator to breathe. Barrett was about to leave for his long awaited surgery on Saturday, when at the last minute US Airways removed him from his flight. The airline claimed Barrett's ventilator was a life support system and therefore he was a medical risk. So he was forced off the plane and his surgery appeared in doubt. However, the Mongelluzzi's stepped in and Barrett's surgery will go ahead as originally planned on Wednesday

 

[a320av8r]

O2 bottles must be certified for aircraft due to pressurization, stress, impact, etc., besides the reasons you've already mentioned. These (airline) bottles meet those requirements, the airline doesn't make money off of this.