Woman Sues JetBlue Over Death Of Husband

WMUPilot · Thu Dec 28, 2006 5:24 am

http://www.usatoday.com/travel/fligh...heart-attack-death-in-flight_x.htm

Something seems really really fishy about this lawsuit. I would like to hear both sides of this one. If what she says is true then i'm completely disgusted.

VonRichtofen · Thu Dec 28, 2006 5:27 am

I agree if what she says is true than the B6 crew is definatley at fault here. But before coming to conclusions let's wait until we hear from witnesses.

I just hope this isn't a case of another OTP obsessed LCC...

iairallie · Thu Dec 28, 2006 6:28 am

I've been on B6 during a medical emergency and they responded in a perfectly professional manner. This whole story sounds fishy.

DfwRevolution · Thu Dec 28, 2006 6:31 am

A teenage Red Cross lifeguard is certified to administer an AED. Does jetBlue not put AED on their aircraft? Was one used in this emergency?

[Edited 2006-12-27 22:44:04]

S5FA170 · Thu Dec 28, 2006 7:00 am

I am fairly certain there would have been an AED on that aircraft, seeing how young the jetBlue fleet is. And this is exactly what Flight Attendant's are on airplanes for - emergency situations. I highly doubt the validity of this story. Hopefully I will not be proven wrong.

AASTEW · Thu Dec 28, 2006 7:06 am

Just to inform you all commerical airliners are REQUIRED to have the AED onboard.

AASTEW

zanl188 · Thu Dec 28, 2006 7:10 am

Quoting S5FA170 (Reply 4):
I am fairly certain there would have been an AED on that aircraft, seeing how young the jetBlue fleet is. And this is exactly what Flight Attendant's are on airplanes for - emergency situations. I highly doubt the validity of this story. Hopefully I will not be proven wrong.

I agree. There's much information not apparent. Most obvious to me is when did the man have the heart attack? Did this happen in the air or on the ground? If on the ground was deplaning already in progress? The article explains none of this. If deplaning were in progress it's pretty easy to see why the crew might have deplaned some passengers to get access to this gentleman.

billreid · Thu Dec 28, 2006 7:18 am

I agree this sounds peculiar, however there had to be alot of witnesses on board.

In the end B6 is properly insured and a settlement will be made. The lady will receive a settlement just to keep this as quiet as possible.

ABQ747 · Thu Dec 28, 2006 7:31 am

If this incident happened nearly two years ago, why is she just now filing a lawsuit?

Falcon84 · Thu Dec 28, 2006 7:41 am

Quoting ABQ747 (Reply 8):
If this incident happened nearly two years ago, why is she just now filing a lawsuit?

Probably took that long for her to concoct this story.

It sounds very fishy to me. There's no way a crew would ignore a passenger in such distress, without taking action, or having emergency personnel standing by when the aircraft landed. If they did, that's gross neglegence by B6, but my gut instinct tells me it in no way happened this way.

Dougloid · Thu Dec 28, 2006 7:41 am

Quoting ABQ747 (Reply 8):
If this incident happened nearly two years ago, why is she just now filing a lawsuit?

I'd guess that there's a statute of limitations that is about to run out.

A320ajm · Thu Dec 28, 2006 7:47 am

I thought all Airline Pilots and cabin crew had to be first aid trained, or am i mistaken. Also, i agree, this story is very suspicious.

WMUPilot · Thu Dec 28, 2006 7:53 am

As stated all commercial aircraft are required, by law, to carry an AED on board. Only jetBlue flight attendants are allowed to use the AED that is onboard the aircraft.

richierich · Thu Dec 28, 2006 7:55 am

Not to sound callous, but if this man had a fatal heart attack in the air, there is not much that can be done. I would have to assume that all logical medical procedures were followed (why wouldn't they be???), so I think that this poor widow is looking for anything. Its sad... I'd be curious to know the outcome of this but I suspect it will end in a settlement.

steeler83 · Thu Dec 28, 2006 8:24 am

Quoting Richierich (Reply 13):
Not to sound callous, but if this man had a fatal heart attack in the air, there is not much that can be done. I would have to assume that all logical medical procedures were followed (why wouldn't they be???), so I think that this poor widow is looking for anything. Its sad... I'd be curious to know the outcome of this but I suspect it will end in a settlement.

Not callous at all IMO. As someone stated above, there were tons of witnesses, I mean, what 100+ people on board, considering that the plane was either an E90 or an A320?

The statement about there being very little anyone could've done does seem valid. Suppose someone tried CPR on this guy. there isn't much room, and if he went into cardiac arrest, that's really the only thing anyone could do I would imagine... If that was me, though, I would be jumping over seats to try and help this fellow to perform CPR.

However, another question comes to mind that I don't think anyone brought up. How far away from BOS was the plane when this happened? If it was a certain distance, it could've diverted to another airport for an emergency situation regarding the passenger. Something like this happened involving a USAir 737 some 12 years ago or so. I forget where it was going to or from, but I remember the plane being diverted to SAT because a passenger was choking on a piece of beef/steak. The FAs had to cut his throat open using plastic knives to remove it (I saw this on Rescue 911 when that was still on network)...

My opinion on this, this does seem odd. One, B6 has a good rep for its service and its employees, and Two, good question about why she waited so long to file the suit. If that really happened, the suit would have been filed days after the incident; not years. We'll all have to wait and see how this all pans out

jetbluefan1 · Thu Dec 28, 2006 8:36 am

If the guy was having a heart attack, wouldn't the passengers around him have noticed and notified the crew in an excited manner?

JetBluefan1

steeler83 · Thu Dec 28, 2006 9:16 am

Quoting JetBluefan1 (Reply 15):
If the guy was having a heart attack, wouldn't the passengers around him have noticed and notified the crew in an excited manner?

nah, They were probably more attentive to their directTV shows Wink

USAirPlatinum · Thu Dec 28, 2006 9:42 am

If the situation developed as described in the article (a big if), not only did the passengers notify the crew, but the crew did nothing to ensure that the gentleman in question received timely medical attention. Thus, if the article is correct, jetBlue is culpable without a doubt.

cityguy · Thu Dec 28, 2006 10:29 am

Quoting WMUPilot (Thread starter):
Something seems really really fishy about this lawsuit. I would like to hear both sides of this one. If what she says is true then i'm completely disgusted.

Just another scumbag personal injury attorney and lowlife client looking for a settlement for this sad sad thing...

Dougloid · Thu Dec 28, 2006 11:13 am

Quoting Cityguy (Reply 18):
Quoting WMUPilot (Thread starter):
Something seems really really fishy about this lawsuit. I would like to hear both sides of this one. If what she says is true then i'm completely disgusted.

Just another scumbag personal injury attorney and lowlife client looking for a settlement for this sad sad thing...

That seems kind of judgmental.

The complaint alleges that the guy suffered a heart attack while in flight. It also alleges that the crew took no action to render assistance, which included diverting to a nearer airport or advising ground control that a passenger was having an in flight medical emergency. The complaint also alleges that on landing the passengers were deplaned before any assistance was provided to the passenger that had the heart attack, and it was only when their efforts proved futile that paramedics were called.

If these allegations are proved out, it is a serious matter indeed, and one that would give me pause when I'm shopping for airline tickets.

In addition the estate of the victim is represented by Kreindler and Kreindler, which happens to be one of the preeminent aviation law firms in the country-

hardly a 'scumbag personal injury attorney representing a lowlife client'.

But I'm willing to be convinced. What do you know about this case that I do not?

[Edited 2006-12-28 03:30:31]

Ken777 · Thu Dec 28, 2006 11:37 am

If the article is close to the way things actually happened then JetBlue has a few problems - financial, PR wise and training wise. There is simply no excuse for what was described in the article and I have no problem with a jury taking care of the situation - if accurate.

Quoting ABQ747 (Reply 8):
If this incident happened nearly two years ago, why is she just now filing a lawsuit?

Probably for a few reasons. The first is that they may have 2 years from the time they discover the negligence to file. The second is that the attorney(s) probably spent a fair amount of time talking to witnesses before filing. Add to that the time the man's wife needed to adjust to the loss of a husband and 2 years is reasonable - 2 weeks would look odd to me.

Quoting Cityguy (Reply 18):
Just another scumbag personal injury attorney and lowlife client looking for a settlement for this sad sad thing...

They are only a scumbag until you need one - then you might discover that they are pretty normal people.

AirframeAS · Thu Dec 28, 2006 1:23 pm

Quoting USAirPlatinum (Reply 17):

But we dont know that. The article is probably 1/10th of the story. I pretty much doubt that B6 FA's would ignore something like that if the pax themselves were trying to get assistance from the FA's. The FA's are there for emergency situations, thats what they are paid to do.

AirRyan · Thu Dec 28, 2006 10:19 pm

Considering today's society, I wouldn't be surprised if the pax next to him ignored him when he began to distress or at least were to occupied with their own matters (DirectTV) to shed enough concern to help the guy out - maybe, just maybe the flight crew was never made aware of the guy's condition?

Varey rarely will someone turn a blind eye on someone in medical distress and surely not someone in a posistion such as the flight crew of a commerical passenger jet - medical divertions happen all the time by all the airlines.

PanAmOldDC8 · Thu Dec 28, 2006 10:31 pm

Quoting WMUPilot (Thread starter):
Something seems really really fishy about this lawsuit. I would like to hear both sides of this one. If what she says is true then i'm completely disgusted.

I agree with you have to wait and see the final court docs. Remember was on an Air Canada flight back in the 70's from YYZ to BGI and we had a similar thing happen, the flight crew started working on the lady and luckily there was a Doctor on board and he took over and continued the CPR, we diverted to SJU and landed, the EMS people came and took her off with her husband. But the crew were trained for such emergencies, so I don't see why the Jet Blue people are not
Feel sorry for the wife, but I hope it is not a quick grab money thing. Only time will tell

itsjustme · Thu Dec 28, 2006 10:46 pm

If Jet Blue staff failed to act in a medical emergency as the suit alleges, I would think there would have been a criminal inquiry made. To have equipment on board and to employ staff who are trained to use the equipment and then for them to fail to act in an emergency as the suit alleges - that sure sounds like criminal negligence to me. Yet there is no mention of any prior criminal investigation.

You know what they say about when something smells like a rat...

zvezda · Thu Dec 28, 2006 10:51 pm

Quoting ABQ747 (Reply 8):
If this incident happened nearly two years ago, why is she just now filing a lawsuit?

Perhaps it took that long to find a law firm willing to take the case?

Quoting WMUPilot (Reply 12):
Only jetBlue flight attendants are allowed to use the AED that is onboard the aircraft.

A doctor onboard wouldn't be allowed to use it?

Dougloid · Thu Dec 28, 2006 11:15 pm

Folks, as a point of information there is a way to get information and stay current on such matters.

One opens up a PACER account. After that it is self directed and simple to use. There you can see all court documents and filings in any case filed in a federal court.

It will cost you $.08 USD per page.

http://pacer.psc.uscourts.gov/

I've got a PACER account and that's where I got my information. It took five or ten minutes to retrieve the complaint.

Happy hunting. See what those scumbag personal injury attorneys and their lowlife clients have been up to.

Wink

Tbird · Fri Dec 29, 2006 12:29 am

I've been on a number of flights where a passenger has gone into some situaiton where they required assistance. Each and everytime the flight crew has asked passengers to remain seated until the EMS and police have come on to assist the passenger.

socalfive · Fri Dec 29, 2006 2:00 am

Quoting BillReid (Reply 7):
In the end B6 is properly insured and a settlement will be made. The lady will receive a settlement just to keep this as quiet as possible.

And that's exactly what's wrong with America today, the parasites will work out a "deal" whether the woman deserves it or not. My BET is she doesn't. It took two years before a parasite found her and invented this tale.

airtran717 · Fri Dec 29, 2006 2:07 am

Quoting WMUPilot (Reply 12):

That's not entirely true... at least this may may be true, in part, as an individual company regulation. But as a rule if there is a doctor, nurse, or EMT on board, they may use the AED. They are designed to be 100% idiot proof. Anyone can use one with ease, even John Q. They will not shock the patient unless they NEED to be shocked. It's just that simple. It's impossible to do harm or misuse them. Anyone who has been trained in their use knows this. I have had to use them in more instances than I care to recount onboard an aircraft.

717

airtran717 · Fri Dec 29, 2006 2:09 am

Quoting WMUPilot (Reply 12):
Only jetBlue flight attendants are allowed to use the AED that is onboard the aircraft.

Sorry, let me be specific about the quoted information. Refer to my previous statement above.

717

skyhawk · Fri Dec 29, 2006 2:31 am

I find it very difficult to believe that a F/A who is, as has been stated here, on board for emergencies would choose to ignore someone in distress as this wife is claiming. Again as many here have said, this really sounds fishy, especially given that it has taken nearly 2 years for the suit to come to light.
BTW, is the law firm that she is using, Kriendler & Kriendler, related to the infamous Jeff Kriendler? Just curious.

HAPPY NEW YEAR!!!

Skyhawk

longhaulheavy · Fri Dec 29, 2006 2:51 am

Quoting Socalfive (Reply 31):
It took two years before a parasite found her and invented this tale.

It's pretty much standard procedure to wait at least that long, even in the best cases. There's no reason to rush into something without a bit of pre-lawsuit investigation. It makes for the writing of a much better initial complaint.

cityguy · Fri Dec 29, 2006 3:07 am

Quoting Socalfive (Reply 31):
And that's exactly what's wrong with America today, the parasites will work out a "deal" whether the woman deserves it or not. My BET is she doesn't. It took two years before a parasite found her and invented this tale.

Exactly AMEN!!!!!

airfoilsguy · Fri Dec 29, 2006 3:14 am

The first question I have is is Jet Blue REQUIRED by law to render medical assistance if someone has a heart attack. If the answer is yes, then the woman in entitled to some money. If the answer is no, then she will get nothing unless it can be proven that Jet Blue caused the man to have a heart attack which I doubt. If the woman is to receive money then she should recover damages that are equal to what her husband would have made if he continued to live out the rest of his normal life. Where you see the outrageous sums of money is when punitive damages are assessed.
Only in instances where corporations have been shown to purposely engage in a practice that endangers human life do I agree with damages over 1 million. Otherwise the amount should be less then $100,000

airtran717 · Fri Dec 29, 2006 3:30 am

Quoting Airfoilsguy (Reply 39):
The first question I have is is Jet Blue REQUIRED by law to render medical assistance if someone has a heart attack.

Required by law to render assistance? No, it's not a Federal law that requires us to aid them. However, if we do not assist them and they die, the airline is help liable for wrongful death. The Good Samaritan Law protects us from individual liability if we do assist and they die anyway. There is also legislation that has been in effect for several years that goes further to protect us than just the GSL. But as far as a law requiring us to give aid, there is none. But just how much of this is lawyer speak or media spin, and how much is real truth? I know that I have made a P.A. announcement asking pax to step aside and make passage for us to get to someone in distress before. That would be the first thing I, or one of my fellow crew members would have done.

717

57AZ · Fri Dec 29, 2006 3:32 am

Quoting WMUPilot (Reply 12):
Only jetBlue flight attendants are allowed to use the AED that is onboard the aircraft.

Not entirely true. If there is a first responder or EMT/Paramedic onboard and they require use of the AED, they can use the available AED too. The company policy only applies to employees and the traveling public. FYI, many states have statutes that make it a criminal offense to interfere with a public safety official in the execution of their official duties.

arffguy · Fri Dec 29, 2006 3:43 am

I find it really hard to believe that the crew did not act appropriately in this situation. Airline employees call us for even very minor things. Heart attacks can range from mild to severe symptoms. His symptoms may not have been overly obvious until it was observed that he was unresponsive. Mild heart attacks don't necessary mean CPR is performed. Unresponsive, well that's a different treatment. Also, I wonder how long the patient had been having difficulties until aid was rendered in the first place. And a large number of flights usually have a doctor or nurse onboard who steps up and helps with inflight emergencies. There are really a lot of details that aren't being given here.

airtran717 · Fri Dec 29, 2006 3:52 am

Quoting 57AZ (Reply 42):
Not entirely true. If there is a first responder or EMT/Paramedic onboard and they require use of the AED, they can use the available AED too. The company policy only applies to employees and the traveling public. FYI, many states have statutes that make it a criminal offense to interfere with a public safety official in the execution of their official duties

Too add further, you are correct there. Should there not be a first responder onboard and I need to perform other medical services on this, or other passengers, I can intruct them on the use of the AED. It's too simple really. You place the pads on the chest exacty where the diagram shows you. The diagram is right on the pads. Then you wait for it to monitor the patient. If it indicates, "shock advised", just push the button. Otherwise, let it continue to monitor. There is nothing more you need to do or know about it. And, really, in the heat of the moment, you do what you can or have to. Management nor the police are genuinely in the place to question if they were not there, on the spot, to witness the event. You do what you have to and try to save a life. Improvisation is sometimes warranted to get the job done.

Electech6299 · Fri Dec 29, 2006 8:32 am

Quoting Zvezda (Reply 25):
Perhaps it took that long to find a law firm willing to take the case?

Last time I was out at IAD, a gaggle of PI attorneys were standing curbside watching traffic and pedestrians. I'm sure you can find PI attorneys in Denver this weekend, for all the neck pain caused by sleeping on the cots or gate seats. That's the last problem here.

Quoting AirTran717 (Reply 32):
They are designed to be 100% idiot proof

No such thing. See my tag line. (But they are pretty idiot-resistant...)

Quoting Airfoilsguy (Reply 39):
If the woman is to receive money then she should recover damages that are equal to what her husband would have made if he continued to live out the rest of his normal life.

Hmmm...the rest of the normal life of a heart attack victim is what?

As to the airline "caused" the heart attack, I suppose a case could be made for the food if he was a frequent long-haul flier, especially pre- 9/11 Wink

By the way, wouldn't B6 only be liable for what they are aware of? How was the nature of the emergency communicated to the crew? The logical conclusion to this line of thinking is that every pax will have to wear a wristband heart monitor that will alert the crew to an inflight emergency...

Dougloid · Fri Dec 29, 2006 10:26 am

Quoting Electech6299 (Reply 47):
y the way, wouldn't B6 only be liable for what they are aware of? How was the nature of the emergency communicated to the crew? The logical conclusion to this line of thinking is that every pax will have to wear a wristband heart monitor that will alert the crew to an inflight emergency

Another passenger alerted the cabin crew during the flight but it is alleged that the cabin crew did not respond.

Like I say if you guys want to read the complaint get a PACER account and look in D. Mass, Fossett v. Jetblue Airways Corporation...

ltbewr · Fri Dec 29, 2006 11:54 am

Just because one files a lawsuit doesn't mean it has a chance of getting to trial and a judgement in favor for the plaintiff.
JetBlue, the Defendant, has to file an answer and will probably file a motion to dismiss. If JetBlue loses on the motion and loses in an appeal, then there will be discovery, which includes interrogatories, documents productions by the parties, then depositions as to all parties as well as experts. If there isn't a settlement during discovery, there may be another motion by Jet Blue for Summary Judgment, to dismiss the case or key parts of it.
If they fail in those motions and appeals, then the parties go to trial, and even then there could be a settlement just before or in the early part of it. The odds of any filed case ever going to trial and further to a jury are very small and will take a number of years.
Even if the Plaintiff gets a court judgment, then the Defendant will likely appeal the amount. Many Plaintiffs or their attorneys don't want to have to go that far without seeing the truth or getting a payoff in a settlement or judgment.
And you wonder why people sue...

jjbiv · Fri Dec 29, 2006 11:55 am

If it's a government document now that the suit has been filed, would you be so kind as to post at least the salient parts for those of us who do not have PACER accounts?

kc135topboom · Fri Dec 29, 2006 11:55 am

Quoting ABQ747 (Reply 8):
If this incident happened nearly two years ago, why is she just now filing a lawsuit?

That is not uncommon. A lawyer that accepts the case will want to do some investigation, and probibly contact JB to try to get an out of court settlement. Failing that, he filed the case in court. That stops the statute of limitation, which in a wrongful death suit, in the Commonwealth of Massachusetts, is 3 years, from the date of death.

Quoting Dougloid (Reply 48):
Another passenger alerted the cabin crew during the flight but it is alleged that the cabin crew did not respond.

That could make things tricky for either side to prove. The factor that a Judge will want to know is "when was the emergency personnel notified, and when was the Jet Blue crew notified". That right there is the whole case, for both sides.

itsjustme · Fri Dec 29, 2006 12:13 pm

Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 51):
Quoting Dougloid (Reply 48):
Another passenger alerted the cabin crew during the flight but it is alleged that the cabin crew did not respond.

That could make things tricky for either side to prove. The factor that a Judge will want to know is "when was the emergency personnel notified, and when was the Jet Blue crew notified". That right there is the whole case, for both sides.

Also, I would think the plaintiff will have to produce the passenger who alerted the cabin crew.

Dougloid · Sat Dec 30, 2006 3:08 am

Quoting Jjbiv (Reply 50):
If it's a government document now that the suit has been filed, would you be so kind as to post at least the salient parts for those of us who do not have PACER accounts?

Fossett had cardiac distress while a passenger on Flight 468 on February 16 2005. This was observed by another passenger who alerted the cabin crew. No Jetblue employee responded during the remainder of the flight, nor did they notify ground or take any measures to assist Fossett.

When the plane arrived at Logan the passengers were all allowed to deplane before the crew figured they better figure out why Fosset wasn't moving. They then called for assistance and tried to revive him-althought they did not use the AED.

Fossett was transported to the hospital and pronounced dead at 12:10 am.

4holer · Sat Dec 30, 2006 3:35 am

Quoting Dougloid (Reply 53):
Fossett had cardiac distress while a passenger on Flight 468 on February 16 2005. This was observed by another passenger who alerted the cabin crew. No Jetblue employee responded during the remainder of the flight, nor did they notify ground or take any measures to assist Fossett.

Allegedly, per lawyer.

Quoting Dougloid (Reply 53):
When the plane arrived at Logan the passengers were all allowed to deplane before the crew figured they better figure out why Fosset wasn't moving. They then called for assistance and tried to revive him-althought they did not use the AED.

Allegedly, per lawyer.

Quoting Dougloid (Reply 53):
Fossett was transported to the hospital and pronounced dead at 12:10 am.

Fact.

Not buying the lawyer's version at all. It would be interesting to hear the eyewitness statements though.

As for the 2 year wait... My sister once hit the back end of a car that suddenly slammed on the brakes on the on-ramp of a wide open highway. The day before the statute of limitations expired, she was (surprise!) sued. Avoids the countersuit issue nicely, doesn't it? Doesn't exactly match this case, but JetBlue will just now start investigating a "cold" case. Which side does that benefit?

This seems to be a money grab.

kc135topboom · Sat Dec 30, 2006 10:49 am

Quoting 4holer (Reply 50):
Avoids the countersuit issue nicely, doesn't it?

Not really. Once a suit is filed, the statute of limitations clock stops, for both sides.

For this case against B6, the witness may be challanged, by B6. In that case, it automaticly becomes a "he said, she said" case. B6 can say they were not told of the man's problem.

Markhkg · Sat Dec 30, 2006 8:00 pm

Quoting AirTran717 (Reply 29):
They are designed to be 100% idiot proof. Anyone can use one with ease, even John Q. They will not shock the patient unless they NEED to be shocked. It's just that simple. It's impossible to do harm or misuse them. Anyone who has been trained in their use knows this.

As an EMT and a CPR/AED instructor, I do caution against this attitude. AEDs have been misused in the past, albeit rarely. Automated External Defibrillators can shock two rhythms (usually): ventricular fibrillation or ventricular tachycardia . However, someone who is conscious can still be in ventricular tachycardia (although they can degrade quickly into VF). If an AED was applied in this situation, the AED could advise a shock even though the person was still awake. And shocking them in this situation is inappropriate.

Additionally, some AEDs have a "manual override" feature that bypasses the automated voice-prompts. Caution is indicated to ensure a passenger does not mis-use this feature, typically designed only for physicians, nurses or paramedics.

Don't get me wrong-- I'm a huge proponent for AEDs, but common sense and training is still needed. Nothing is idiot-proof. Wink

cf6ppe · Sun Dec 31, 2006 4:06 am

Several question after reading above posts...

1) Where did referenced JB486 (Feb. 16, 2005) originate..?? Flightaware shows an old flight JB486 as LGB to BOS...

2) Where was the aircraft when the eventually fatal health problem occurred... Flight Level..?? Geographical location..??

3) What were the possible diversion airports and how adequate were these airports able to handle the subject health problem..??

4) Can someone fill in these questions..??

My comment:
I remember many years ago that EAL was taken to court over a serious health problem that happened on a B727 destined for MIA. I don't recall the originating station, but the aircraft was near MCO, albeit at cruise altitude and cruise speed. The suit alleged that when the health problem was relayed to the crew, that the aircraft continued onto MIA rather than diverting to MCO or other area airports. On arrival at MIA the aircraft quickly taxied to a waiting medical team. In court the aircraft performance engineers quickly showed their calculations that the aircraft command had got the aircraft on the ground in about the same time in MIA as they could have by diverting to MCO. As I recall the suit was dropped or dismissed.

What the lay folks don't comprehend, is the time it takes to descend from a FL300 or above. I suppose that one could do the lawn dart maneuver, but a fast descent from above FL300 takes a hundred miles or more - straight line.

Who knows, maybe the JB crew made the best decision based on the situation... It will be interesting to see the finish....

Who is online

Popular Searches On Airliners.net