Heart attack, but no emergency landing

The Economist

HOW sick does a passenger have to be before a pilot makes an emergency landing? This is one question being asked following news of a BBC journalist’s harrowing flight from Singapore to London in mid-March.

Max Pearson had a heart attack “soon” after take-off, according to the Daily Mail's article, and was looked after by a fellow passenger. He did not get proper hospital attention, though, till the Singapore Airways service completed its 14-hour-flight to Heathrow. Despite undergoing “emergency surgery which saved his life”, he has been left with heart damage and is apparently considering legal action against the airline over its refusal to make an emergency landing.

Singapore Airlines has refused to comment on the case, but did say this:

With regards to in-flight medical emergencies, our general standard procedure after ascertaining that a passenger is unwell is to broadcast over the PA system a request for medical assistance on board, and to contact our ground-based telemedical service provider, MedAire.
 
An in-flight diversion may be carried out based on medical recommendations. Our pilots will take considerations, including  the recommendation of MedAire, into account on whether to divert to the nearest suitable airport with medical facilities.

Where necessary, we would arrange for additional medical support on the ground to be made available as soon as the aircraft touches down.

For whatever as-yet-unknown reason, no in-flight diversion took place. Perhaps the passenger-doctor looking after Mr Pearson thought he looked all right and MedAire recommended getting him to London. Perhaps his heart attack was not actually diagnosed as a heart attack at the time. Perhaps communications between the ground and the air failed to work properly. These are all things we will hope to learn in due course. But for now, we should avoid excoriating Singapore Airlines and simply wish Mr Pearson the best recovery possible.

The Economist, 18-04-2011