Rookie120 0 #26 February 25, 2008 QuoteWhere -exactly- do you find stuff made from green metal? It's just paint to indicate what they are for. The new bottles we have are actually composite now instead of the metal bottles.If you find yourself in a fair fight, your tactics suck! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kbordson 8 #27 February 25, 2008 QuoteQuoteThe hypoxia on board probably led to heart strain as they generally pressurize the cabins to 7,000 to 10,000 feet. It's not that high but the effect could still have been the same. A change in altitude and pressure might have been the right recipe for her heart failure. I am not a Doc so who knows. My opinion is if her medical condition was that bad she should not be flying anyway. Thats just me. You might be right... as you work in that field. But this is how I got that level of pressurization. Per, "Directly measured cabin pressure conditions during Boeing 747-400 commercial aircraft flights" Authors: KELLY, PaulT.; SECCOMBE, LeighM.; ROGERS, PeterG.; PETERS, MatthewJ. Respirology, Volume 12, Number 4, July 2007 , pp. 511-515(5). QuoteIn the low pressure environment of commercial aircraft, hypoxaemia may be common and accentuated in patients with lung or heart disease. Regulations specify a cabin pressure not lower than 750 hPa but it is not known whether this standard is met. This knowledge is important in determining the hazards of commercial flight for patients and the validity of current flight simulation tests. source And using this units conversion is where I've always thought it was pressurized between that range. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
turtlespeed 226 #28 February 25, 2008 QuoteQuoteWhere -exactly- do you find stuff made from green metal? It's just paint to indicate what they are for. The new bottles we have are actually composite now instead of the metal bottles. Then shouldn't it be called green paint instead of green metal?I'm not usually into the whole 3-way thing, but you got me a little excited with that. - Skymama BTR #1 / OTB^5 Official #2 / Hellfish #408 / VSCR #108/Tortuga/Orfun Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Andrewwhyte 1 #29 February 25, 2008 Quote I'm still curious...because it seems that if the airline or FAA says you can't bring oxygen when it's required for medical reasons, then they're obligated to take on the responsiblity of providing medical oxygen. It's easy to say "She didn't have to board the flight" but the fact is, particularly if she's island bound, she is entitled to be able to move around the world just as we are. She may have been old, she may have been unhealthy, but on first appearance, it also seems that the FAA or American Air bear some culpability, as they denied her the right to carry on her own oxygen. I really don't get where you come up with the idea that if the government prohibits something they accept responsibility for its absence. The national park example I gave you earlier is one where that is obviously not true. Can you give me an example where the gov is held responsible in a situation where the person was not compelled into the situation? It is not a matter of this woman's rights; we do not have a right to fly. If we did what would happen to people with handgun carrying permits? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kbordson 8 #30 February 25, 2008 I don't know the legal aspect of this, but I would guess that it likely falls under one of the disability acts. Edit to add: Here is some info. Passengers with Disabilities But... it's not exactly GOVERNMENT RESPONSIBILITY. Rather government regulations that mandate the airlines. So... I think it would implicate the airline Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Conundrum 1 #31 February 25, 2008 Quote Quote Quote Well, it saves a hospital bill... Yeah, but the clean up of a deceased body on an airplane can be messy and very expensive. Step 1. Open door below 10,000 ft. Step 2. Push body out. Step 3. Close the door. hahahahahah wtf Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Andrewwhyte 1 #32 February 25, 2008 QuoteI don't know the legal aspect of this, but I would guess that it likely falls under one of the disability acts. OK, that is a point I hadn't considered. Does it put the onus upon the Federal government or the carrier? It certainly looks to me like American is going to eat this one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kbordson 8 #33 February 25, 2008 QuoteQuoteI don't know the legal aspect of this, but I would guess that it likely falls under one of the disability acts. OK, that is a point I hadn't considered. Does it put the onus upon the Federal government or the carrier? It certainly looks to me like American is going to eat this one. oops... see my edit. I added comments that kind of agree with your "American is going to eat this one." Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
billvon 3,118 #34 February 25, 2008 >Then shouldn't it be called green paint instead of green metal? Yes, Turtle. I expect a massive letter-writing campaign within the next day to address this glaring intentional bit of misinformation and deception! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Rookie120 0 #35 February 25, 2008 I dont call them green metal. We call them POB's. You just out to bust my balls today or what? If you find yourself in a fair fight, your tactics suck! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Andrewwhyte 1 #36 February 25, 2008 That is what I would have assumed. Regulations dealing with private transactions usually tend to put the onus on the provider. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
turtlespeed 226 #37 February 25, 2008 Quote I dont call them green metal. We call them POB's. You just out to bust my balls today or what? No - it's just that the entities involved have all these forms that, when they are required, have to be filled out correctly. I just want the same standard held to them. I mean - what did they outsource the editing of that document?I'm not usually into the whole 3-way thing, but you got me a little excited with that. - Skymama BTR #1 / OTB^5 Official #2 / Hellfish #408 / VSCR #108/Tortuga/Orfun Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
ryoder 1,590 #38 February 25, 2008 I suggest we take a hacksaw to Turtle's shell to see if he is green all the way through, or just on the surface. "There are only three things of value: younger women, faster airplanes, and bigger crocodiles" - Arthur Jones. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Rookie120 0 #39 February 25, 2008 Quote I suggest we take a hacksaw to Turtle's shell to see if he is green all the way through, or just on the surface. I got just the tools for the job! If you find yourself in a fair fight, your tactics suck! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
DSE 5 #40 February 25, 2008 I would take your position into consideration if it were more like "National Parks don't allow wheelchairs" vs firearms. Firearms aren't required for medical purposes, and aren't required for mobility. Mobility is a basic human right. It's why we require wheelchair ramps, elevators, etc, it's why we require audible crossing signals in metropolitan areas, etc. I don't know if she was handicapped or not, but at the least in our airport, people are allowed to move through the airport with their oxygen, they merely can't take it on board. when my child required medical transport, the airline charged me extra for the oxygen used in flight. In other words, they provide it. If in this case they agreed to provide it (which it seems they would be doing in the absence of allowance of a personal bottle of oxygen), then I'd think they'd make sure the bottles had oxygen in them. I honestly don't know....I'd sure like to know. It seems reasonable that they'd be responsible in the absence of allowance. I could be wrong, but I do believe an airline would have a challenge discriminating against anyone who wanted to fly. Afterall, they have said they legally can't discriminate against overly large people who have doublewide derriers... Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
turtlespeed 226 #41 February 25, 2008 Quote I suggest we take a hacksaw to Turtle's shell to see if he is green all the way through, or just on the surface. Typical response for wanting things to be fairly done. Look - if I have to resubmit shit because of typos and such - so should the ones that provide the paperwork.I'm not usually into the whole 3-way thing, but you got me a little excited with that. - Skymama BTR #1 / OTB^5 Official #2 / Hellfish #408 / VSCR #108/Tortuga/Orfun Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Andrewwhyte 1 #42 February 25, 2008 QuoteI would take your position into consideration if it were more like "National Parks don't allow wheelchairs" vs firearms. Firearms aren't required for medical purposes, and aren't required for mobility. Mobility is a basic human right. It's why we require wheelchair ramps, elevators, etc, it's why we require audible crossing signals in metropolitan areas, etc. Firearms are required for protection of person and are a right. Quote I honestly don't know....I'd sure like to know. It seems reasonable that they'd be responsible in the absence of allowance. I could be wrong, but I do believe an airline would have a challenge discriminating against anyone who wanted to fly. Afterall, they have said they legally can't discriminate against overly large people who have doublewide derriers... The airline probably is responsible, just not the FAA. If the fatty isn't allowed on the airplane they sue the airline, not the FAA. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
DangerRoo 0 #43 February 25, 2008 QuoteQuote . . . gaseous oxygen units (usually made of green metal) . . . Where -exactly- do you find stuff made from green metal? deep in Nevada desert (I.C.D#2 VP) "<3 ..Looks like breasts coming out of an ice cream cone. Mmmm."~John Mitchell "I'm good with my purple penis straw" ~sky mama Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
jcd11235 0 #44 February 25, 2008 I seem to recall reading in the SIM once upon a time that medical grade oxygen is not suitable for aviation use. That might explain why pax can't bring their own bottle.Math tutoring available. Only $6! per hour! First lesson: Factorials! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
DSE 5 #45 February 25, 2008 QuoteQuoteI would take your position into consideration if it were more like "National Parks don't allow wheelchairs" vs firearms. Firearms aren't required for medical purposes, and aren't required for mobility. Mobility is a basic human right. It's why we require wheelchair ramps, elevators, etc, it's why we require audible crossing signals in metropolitan areas, etc. Firearms are required for protection of person and are a right. Quote I honestly don't know....I'd sure like to know. It seems reasonable that they'd be responsible in the absence of allowance. I could be wrong, but I do believe an airline would have a challenge discriminating against anyone who wanted to fly. Afterall, they have said they legally can't discriminate against overly large people who have doublewide derriers... The airline probably is responsible, just not the FAA. If the fatty isn't allowed on the airplane they sue the airline, not the FAA. I've yet to see a debate anywhere in North America on the subject of mobility of human beings not being a basic right, yet there have been plenty of debates about whether firearms are/are not a basic right. Interesting discussion, particularly in light of the use of the word "fatty." Are fat people not entitled to the same rights as thin people? I think we all agree oxygen is a right. If this woman required medically-prescribed oxygen (and she did, according to the news reports), and the airline would not permit her to carry her medically-prescribed oxygen on board, isn't the airline then obligated to provide said oxygen? And if the airline says they do, aren't they legally obligated to be sure their oxygen bottles are charged? Moreover, does the airlines have a responsiblity to assure their first-aid equipment is functioning (such as the defib unit)? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kbordson 8 #46 February 25, 2008 Are you trying to throw this to SC?! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Andrewwhyte 1 #47 February 25, 2008 Yes they are. However I don't think an aircraft ride is a right. Mobility rights means you can get on an aircraft if you own one or can buy a seat. If you don't fit in the seat you can buy a bigger one. Big ones cost more than small ones. BTW I don't think being overweight is a disability, it is a lack of sufficient effort. If I quit drinking beer and stopped eating pasta I am sure I could lose my gut. Ian Harrop lost his and it was way bigger than mine. I am sure that is a much steeper hill to climb for some than for others just like it is harder to make it as a pro hockey player if you are 5' 7" than if you are 6' 2", but the hall of fame has examples of both. Does someone who weighs 275lbs have the right to go skydiving if I offer the service to his 175lb friend. On the other hand Billy Vance can change his diet all he wants, he will still be deaf. There is a big difference. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
DSE 5 #48 February 25, 2008 you have a valid point, to a point. There are *all* sorts of endocrinal issues that don't allow everyone in every culture to be thin, or anything but obese. Neither of us know if the woman's size was relevant to her need for oxygen. yes, I feel flying on an aircraft is a right. Airlines may not discriminate against anyone, generally speaking. Just like a bus, cab, or other paid transportation. Either way, we're far OT. My question still stands, who would be responsible? Maybe Lawrocket has a reasonable answer? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
mx757 4 #49 February 26, 2008 the AA Airbus have at least 6 portable O2 bottles... Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
bloody_trauma 2 #50 February 26, 2008 sounds to me in a speculatory way... that the woman was sufferingfrom a diabetic problem, c/o thirt, and then ate something, the three hall make signs of a diabetic attack are polydipsia (excessive thirst), poly phagia, (excessive hunger) and polyuria( excessive urination). so she could have possible had to of those three, dunno about the third. it goes on to say that she had heart disease,... im not aware of any airline that would refuse you the right of medically necessary equipment as long as you brought valid documantation for it. I highly doubt that the administration of oxygen alone would have saved this woman, if her airway or respiratory system was going to fail, oxygen would help but it wouldnt stop what ever killed her without definitive medical care. so im seeing any number of problems that may have killed her... that, and are the people on that airline trained to administer oxygen... oxygen administration is very touchy to me, there are so many devices to give o2 and each of those devices provides a specific amount of oxygen/room air concentration. and theres a ratio of percentage increase for every liter of air you give. so when a first responder give o2 to at 10 liters on a nasal canula, they dont know that only 6 is going to go in, and if that person is prone to certain respiraotry condition, you may actually kill thier respiratory drive after a prolonged period of administration.... jumps off his soap box... that woman was gonna die anyways... i take care of people for as long as medicine will allow them to live, but people are living way too long these days when they should be in the grave. like the poeple who cant barely function at all and stay on a vent for years... bah it cost more to keep you alive than to plan your funeral ... that is allFly it like you stole it Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
