Back to Squawk list
  • 20

Asiana crash video: Firefighters saw injured girl before she was run over

提交時間:
 
Teenager Ye Meng Yuan didn't die when a plane crashed at San Francisco International Airport last July. She actually survived the impact, only to die minutes later after a fire truck ran over her. Now, newly released video suggests emergency workers saw Ye's injured body on the ground before she was fatally struck -- challenging earlier claims that she was accidentally run over because she may have been covered in firefighting foam. In the footage, one firefighter tried to stop an… (www.cnn.com) 更多...

Sort type: [Top] [Newest]


[This poster has been suspended.]

[This poster has been suspended.]

PhotoFinish
PhotoFinish 3
That was exactly the point they were at, with the fire increasing in intensity.

I was struck by 2 observations:

1) How fast the trucks were racing to the scene of the crashed plane, at the same exact time that everyone else was literally 'running [away] for their lives'.

This is one of those few times, when people described as running for tier lives, actually are.

2. How close one or more firefighters were to the girl's 'body' laying unconscious or dead on the ground near the plane. They had every opportunity to check her, if such an act was thought to be necessary and prudent.
eater1952
It's not okay for a fire fighter to kill someone by running over them with their fire truck getting to a fire in order to save someone else for no reason.
PhotoFinish
PhotoFinish 2
They didn't run over getting to the fire. They ran over her while they were aggressively trying to cut down the fire, as they drove circuits around the plane spraying foam on the plane. She only got run over after they couldn't see her anymore under the foam.

This video actually shows a lot of care to NOT run over her.

But since there were not sufficient rescuers for the large number of victims, and no rescuers were available to help her before the firefighter got into fire suppression mode and before she got covered with foam, she was an unfortunate casualty in the desperate attempt to minimize casualties from the disaster.

Delaying fire suppression while rescuers
PhotoFinish
PhotoFinish 3
Delaying fire suppression while rescuers left the groups other victims scattered across the airfield to try to save a dead or near dead unconscious girl would cause unnecessary risk. A large explosion from the plane could kill many firefighters and destroy necessary fire apparatus.

If she were visible after foam application, she wouldn't have been run over and rescuers would eventually get to her to confirm death or to render an attempt a life saving treatment. AFTER the plane was covered in foam, no longer on fire, and nor in immediate danger of exploding.

You must remember that the events I describe, all happened in the first few minites after crash - from about 3 minutes to about 15 minutes.

No one injured the girl intentionally. The firefighters' contribution to injuries happened as a consequence of the attempt to mitigate the effects of the disaster.

The pilots' contribution to her injuries was a result of their dramatic failure to perform the most basic skills of their profession.

The firefighters put themselves in danger to save others.* The pilots put everyone in danger before running away and saving themselves.

* There is no obligation for firefighters to put themselves in danger. The first thing first responders are taugh is not tonput themselves in danger. That so many responders put themselves in danger everyday is considered heroic and brave by some and foolish by others. Just because they put tmemselves in danger's way that day, does not further mean they must accept all risk without trying to mitigate the risk.

Showing up to a plane fire is a huge risk. Putting out the fire quickly before other concerns is a reasonable act.

That the girl lost her life is tragic. The firefighters were doing their jobs (while trying not to die). The pilots didn't do their jobs (then ran away to save their hides).
joelwiley
joel wiley 2
It is not ok for a pilot to kill someone by botching basic piloting skills, and to put passengers in a situation where they get run over by a fire truck.

[This poster has been suspended.]

tartarus12
I find it ironic that you are condemning a pilot who made a mistake (albeit a big one) while giving a pass to a fire truck driver who made a mistake (albeit a big one).

By your logic a policeman, while responding to a bank robbery, is free to shoot indiscriminately at said robbers without regard for any bystanders. If he kills someone it is blamed on the robbers. But that's not the way the world works.

[This poster has been suspended.]

tartarus12
No, it is not how it works. If a police officer shoots an unarmed civilian while stopping a crime, the Department will be writing a check. If the Police engage in high speed pursuit and kill an innocent bystander, the Department will be writing a check. And if the Fire Department runs over an innocent bystander while responding to a call, the Department will be writing a check. That IS how it works.

It had been proven that the driver knew she was there. I say he simply forgot she was there. You had an issue with that. At the same time you say no one would knowingly run someone over. Well, which is it?

I'm not saying anyone should go to prison here. All I'm saying is the fire department is directly responsible for the girl's death and they should be made to pay.

[This poster has been suspended.]

tartarus12
It's not all about the money but that's all the family has left. They can't get their daughter back so money is the only alternative.

Once again you are talking about criminal liability. I am talking about civil liability. Nobody is saying the truck driver should go to jail. Just pay.

You mentioned in another response that you would intervene if faced with an armed robber in a store. Just so you know, if you shoot but miss the robber and kill the clerk, get a lawyer because nobody will say you were in the right. And you will be held criminally and civilly responsible.
joelwiley
joel wiley 1
"It's not all about the money "..." Just pay." Then, what else is it about.
As for this being the "only alternative", you will note that no claim has been filed against the pilot in a Korean court. Do you wonder why?

If you were the passenger in a vehicle I was driving when I rolled it on highway and you were ejected, run over by another vehicle and fatally injured, who would be sued? Me, the driver of the vehicle who hit you, the other driver's employer, or the auto manufacturer?
tartarus12
Flawed analogy. If you would have said ejected, lying by the side of the road, was noticed and pointed out by the fire department then run over by the same fire truck. I would sue the fire department for every penny their insurance company had.
PhotoFinish
PhotoFinish 2
What you seem to miss is that several fire apparatus started encircling the plane, going round and round the airplane spraying foam.

Even if one driver had seen her initially, the other drivers had not. Even the driver that had been told about the body, after icrling the plane several times could not properly identify the location of the body under the foam.

The firefighters are also trained not too move a casualty. If you move them, and they die, they'll get blamed. Plus, moving the body could makeni harder to collect evidence for an investigation.

So you're damned I you do, damned if you don't.

They went about doin their job.

The most important fact is that the girl was run over while the firefighters were in the course of doing their fire-fighting duties. This while they were endangering their lives.

They made efforts to avoid her initially. But their lives were on the line. They had to get that fire under control. If all the rescue vehicles were not tied up with 300+ other victims, they'd likely have moved her and handed her off to a rescue crew.

In the circumstances, they couldn't spare any firefighters to babysit any one person. There just aren't sufficient persoannel on site at an airport ready to respond to a major airliner crash and equipped and trained to be able to remain in such close proximity to a burning plane. No airport has enough. It is impossible to staff up sufficiently to provide each crash victim their own emergency responder to reach them within 5 minites and be able to stay with them.

So mvong a victim without an objective is out. Accidently running over them is also quite unpleasant.

So, I'm guessing that airports may begin to train and the NTSB may recommend that bodies (dead or alive) encountered in the immediate fire response zone, should be marked (when pissible) with reflective cones and/or a tall self-standing marker/ pole/ flag, so that maneuvering fire trucks can avoid accidently running over a body, no matter if alive or not.

Money will not bring back the girl to their family. The families are better served by a proper review and improvements to procedures, that are shared around the world.

The only matter that is improved with a high monetary award or settlement is the attorney's bank account. The family would gladly give up any an all claims in exchange for additional time with thier cherished daughter. The attorney is happier with the girl dead than alive. That is the difference.

If there was a criminal act, charge it. Doing so would be a better deterent than any governmental or societal payment in a civil case. The only ones whose behavior may rise to the level of criminal recklessness is the pilots at the controls of the plane. The FO was the only one (of the four) seemingly concerned with thier sink rate, abs called it out repeatedly.

I am not shocked by the firefighters' behavior. They were risking their lives to save passengers. them they were risking to lives to put out the fire and keep their colleagues from being killed.

The pilots were only doing their job. Unfortunately they weren't nearly as good at their job.

The rescuers were able to get to everyone but one. Of all the others, all but 2 others survived.

That survival rate is due to some impressive systems that worked. The first level of defense is the plane's crew. The pilots failed in their role of landing safely. then the cabin cres took over in evacuating all the passengers (even if having to ask permission of the PIC twice, which delayed the evac. The pilots did assist the cabin crew in getting passengers out.

The next line of defense is the airport emergency response crews (police, firefighters, rescuers and paramedics) these can assist in evacuation and initiating life saving treatment.

Next there is a system to transport the patients to the appropriate medical facilities.

Next there are med facilities with trauma centers that can adequately desk with immediately life threatening traumatic injuries. Lastly these facilities have critical care teams that can continue to follow the mist critical patients' condition while being treated at hospital.

This entire chain has been quite effective in minimizing the loss of life. The airport firefighters are an essential element in this chain.

The greatest fault to this girl (and the other two who died) plus the many passengers who were severely injured and crippled for life was caused by the pilots. Accidents happen, even while trying to save lives.

The pilots are bit condemned for their own accident, but for their lack of proficiency in the very skills that professional pilots need to have, that combined catastrophically with one or more mistake(s) made by the pilot(s) in the last 2 minutes of flight. Proper piloting would've allowed the pilots to recover from their mistake(s).

The firefighter acted aggressively to save lives by putting out the fire. I can't give the pilots a similar pass. There is no similar mitigating factor. In fact, there is no excuse for failing to safely land a perfectly functioning airplane in perfect weather.

Let's just agree the two are very different in terns of culpability and of mitigation.

I can't be too excited about a large payout. It will only be paid ultimately by the taxpayers of SanFrsncisco and the passengers of SFO, who have no culpability in the matter (even though they'll be the ultimate payers). Large governmental entities are usually self-insured.

No matter the civil psyment(s) if any, the rescuers would always try to improve their performance, including learning from mistakes that have happened in earlier incidents (anywhere in the world). Thus would happen with a payout or without. So, the payout does not provide a societal benefit.
joelwiley
joel wiley 1
You, or more properly your estate in the above case, could sue for any amount imagined. Due to Calif tort reform (I mention this because this will be the jurisdiction), pain and suffering awards are limited to 250K. Lawyer gets 1/3 up front. At this point there is no suit- just a complaint.
FYI, there is case law where plaintiff prevailed against all entities I mentioned.
eater1952
So if your a firefighter going to a fire it's okay to run over someone with your fire truck, killing that person in the process, to save someone else? I don't think so.
btweston
btweston -5
Maybe you didn't read the part about when the one firefighter said, "Whoa, whoa, whoa! Stop, stop, stop! There's a body ... there's a body right there. Right in front of you..."


And the guy kept driving. This is not something that we should simply shrug off. Remember, the girl was alive before the firetruck crushed her, and had driver turned slightly to the left or right it would not have endangered your 200+ other people. Probably would have saved one more.
PhotoFinish
PhotoFinish 3
"in front of you"
NOT "under your truck"

So not the same thing.

That initial racing to the scene was the firefighters racing toward a burning plane,
1) to save passengers
2) to put out the fire
3) great endangering their own lives.
btweston
btweston -3
Well of course she was in front of the truck before she was under it. That's how running over stuff works. The racoon is in front of your car... *bump*... Now it's under it.

I'm sorry, what about my statement did you not understand?
joelwiley
joel wiley 4
Are you trying to say that the video shows the actual incident where Ye Meng was run over? If so, please clarify how you have reached that conclusion. At 1:16 the narrator laments that the firefighters 'ignored' her while directing the truck around the body. You are not making sense.
MANBOI
MANBOI -4
James Farnsworth: Did you watch the video? Nobody checked the victim and all passengers appear to have been evacuated when she was run over, not once but twice, after she was pointed out to the driver of the ARFF truck.
joelwiley
joel wiley 7
Manboi, did you notice that the video is all about the claimant's attorney and his presentation? Did you notice that the video is cherry-picked and heavily edited? Notice the lack of time frames on the videos? "Nobody checked the victim..."- at least in the selected video. Congratulations on being moved and manipulated just as Mr. Green JD anticipated.
PVUpilot
PVUpilot 5
That was my thought exactly. Heavily edited video to try and make you believe what you saw (and he said) was the only thing that went on. Also, it is CNN, a LOT of their stuff is one sided and pushed heavily on the one side (as is with most national news outlets). I give the firefighters the benefit of the doubt, they most likely did the best they could under their circumstances.
tartarus12
Robert Curley -2
I'll take a shot at this one.

How about when responding to a fire don't kill anyone. As for your second sentence, totally false. They did know she was there. She was pointed out by the other firefighters. They just forgot about her. Had they followed proper procedures she would be alive today. They arrived at the plane crash, adrenaline rushing. When the fire took off their adrenaline went into overdrive and they finally had a chance to put all their training to work. Completely forgetting about the girl lying in front of them. I'm not saying they are criminals but they made a mistake and the City and the fire department will be writing a big check because of it.

As far as the offer to sacrifice your for life the greater good, you should watch that video once more. When the fire truck first arrives can you tell me what is missing? Passengers. Where are they? They are not sliding down the chutes. Why? Because they were already off the plane. So perhaps you edit your offer to needlessly be run over whilst 200+ survivors are standing around watching a plane burn from a safe distance.

Since 9/11 some people have viewed first responders with a god-like reverence. That they can do no wrong because the job they do is hard. They are human beings. They make mistakes. And they made a mistake in this case.
PhotoFinish
PhotoFinish 4
The video was selectively edited. Police and firefighters entered the plane to help everyone get out. The lawyer doesn't want you to see video of people risking their lives to make sure you would be saved if you had been a passenger on the plane.

Unfortunately she collapsed too early and in the wrong place.

Unfortunately (and predictably) the fire advanced and needed to be put out before the plane exploded potentially killing many.

The rescuers had their hands full with many critical patients needing emergency care not near a potentially exploding plane. She was (unconscious) at the wring place at the wrong time. Eventually they'd get to her, and hopefully the fire would be under control.
tartarus12
Robert Curley -2
I repeat, when the truck that ran the girl over showed up the passengers were already off the plane. They didn't edit passengers sliding down the chute out of the video. Just because someone is trying to help someone else doesn't give them the right to be careless and kill an innocent. I don't understand why this is so difficult to understand. So if the fire department is responding to a fire and happen to run down a dozen orphans, were all good with that because they are trying to help.
PhotoFinish
PhotoFinish 4
One word... editing.
Two words... creative editting.

Go read the NTSB pilot interviews. Police and fire fighter boarded a burning plane to get passengers out.

You can jump up and down in your mother's basement as many times as you want, but that won't change the facts.
joelwiley
joel wiley 3
Just out of curiosity, what, if any, news sources to you read?
tartarus12
Robert Curley -1
Why would you ask that? Is it so if my sources differ from yours my opinion is discredited in your mind? I'm basing my opinion of this story on the CNN video linked.
joelwiley
joel wiley 3
I was wondering, because I did not see any evidence of critical thought processes. The video is not what I would consider a news story (who, what, when, where, why type of reporting with some research and/or fact checking behind it). I appears to be a piece written by the attorney for the family as part of the run-up to a lawsuit. It's intent seems to be to sensationalize a limited point of view and directed for an emotional reaction.

If you are basing your opinion solely on the basis of this single presentation, you are welcome to do so. If such is the case, IMHO your opinion is ignorant because of a larger perspective is lacking and stupid because you fail to recognize that.
PhotoFinish
PhotoFinish 6
Accident possibly could've been preventable, if they checked didn't check her but could've, and found her breathing.

The firefighter was close enough to notice if she was breathing or not. The medical examiner had concluded that she was still alive (likely means the medical examiner see evidence that the heart was still pumping blood at time of injuries from being run over.

Either her breathing was very shallow, or she wasn't breathing, or it was too difficult to notice one way of another in the chaotic scene.

The video clearly shows a firefighter saying there was a 'body, there'. So the firefighters were clearly under the impresion that she wasn't breathing.

They were close enough that they could've rendered medical aid, or requested medical aid fir her.

That's all nice and dandy.

EXCEPT:

1. Her body was thrown from the plane because of the pilots' incompetent behavior. The pilots were more than negligent. They were reckless in endangering the lives of passengers and crew on the plane, plus potentially an entire 747 on the ground. This was almost one of the deadliest plane crashes of all-time, maybe second only to the crash in the canary islands of 2 747s.

2. The fire-fighters were dealing with a mass causality incident. There were over 300 victims. That's a lot of victims. In thus specific circumstance, the most injured don't deserve the most attention. Some people may be left to die.

The protocols for these incidents dictate that responders should redirect the life saving resources away from those that are DEAD and/or ALMOST DEAD toward those that can bd saved. The walking wounded are also left yo be dealt with at a later time. Those that ard injured bug savable should get priority for life-saving intervention.

3. The video clearly shows that the fire fighters are under the impression that the young girl is dead.

4. It is unclear from snippets of video that were selectively edited, whether anyone ever checked the 'body' for signs of life.

5. It is reasonable during an MCI for rescuers to redirect their attention away from a 'body' and toward more important tasks. They are trained to do so.

6. So it's not negligent.

------

Many will think, "if it was my family member, I'd want them to save her."

But don't lose sight of the alternative:
"My family member was savable, but they never got to her, because they wasted time with other dead or nearly dead but unsavable victims."

The first seems tragic. But the second is way more tragic.

----------

The only modifieron the above, is that when possible, each victim should be evaluated and tagged. Those who are dead or almost dead get a BLACK tag. Severely injured but easily survivable get a RED tag. Those who are injured but require assistance get YELLOW. Those with little or no injuries get a GREEN - the walking wounded.

This girl was treated as a BLACK tagged victim. That us clear. I can't verify for you from these videos alone, whether she was checked and/or evaluated in any way.

Sad. Yes.
Tragic. Yes.
Negligent. Not obviously so.

(Not at the scene of an mass casualty incident with 300+ victims.).
pilotman893
I gotta say you really hit the point on this topic. I took a fire science class and EMT class and plus my dad is a current Lt. for a fire department.Unfortunately we have not seen the whole video but just parts of it. I really wish the media would not do that, cause it really makes people have a different idea of what happen from those clips. If they played the whole video without cutting out anything, people would have a better understanding. Rolling up on a mass causality incident you have to start a triage. Marking with Green, Yellow, Red, and Black tags. If there is a person that's not going to make it you Black tag them and move on to the next patient. Unfortunately we did not see the whole video so we cannot assume that the firefighters just walked past her without checking.

Are the firefighters negligent? No
Are the pilots negligent? Yes, only because they could have avoided this incident.
joelwiley
joel wiley 4
The video appears to be a well edited presentation featuring Justin Green who is listed as the attorney for the complainant, with footage cherry-picked for effect. A google search found a Justin Green in a NY law firm who has aviation as a specialty. I wonder how much of the 'story' is CNN investigation and how much is a canned piece orchestrated by an attorney.

The 'mass casualty incident' of the day became 'disaster' with the introduction of lawyers, or so it seems to me.
Musketeer1
Musketeer1 7
The people responsible for this girl's death are the pilots and no one else.
zennermd
zennermd 6
I completely agree with you. Why are they going after the firefighers when it was the incompetence of the pilots that caused all of this, or have they forgetten that.
pilotman893
Yep I totally agree, its like they are making it the firefighter's fault, every day the news people keep saying the firefighter's didn't check the body, if you would stop editing the whole video and taking small clips out then we would see the whole scene on what happen. Talk about the pilots and how negligent they were when they noticed they were getting too low on airspeed and should have gone around but did nothing!
PhotoFinish
PhotoFinish 5
The lawyers are trying to blame the firefighters because there's some money to be gotten from doing so.

Unfortunately, the liability of the airline is greatly limited by international airline convention. Because there is very limited money to be gotten from the airlines, there's little profit in blaming the pilots.

With the clear case against the pilots, if there wasn't such a drastic limitation of airline liability, they would go after the pilots' actions.
joelwiley
joel wiley 4
Ala Willie Sutton on robbing banks.
Other reasons for going after government entities are a) deep pockets, and b) lawyers paid less that some private firms.
PhotoFinish
PhotoFinish 3
"Why do you rob banks?"
"That's where the money is."
btweston
btweston -4
Because the firefighters ran her over while she was still alive. To pretend that they have zero responsibility here is crazy. It's like when parking garages claim that they aren't responsible when the crash your car into another car.

[This poster has been suspended.]

joelwiley
joel wiley 2
Attorney job#1 win for 33% share (minimum)
btweston
btweston -5
Well, and the guy who ran her over when she was still alive because he wasn't paying attention.
Musketeer1
Musketeer1 5
btweston, I've never agreed with a comment of yours, so these ignorant ones don't surprise me at all. Consider this the one that put me over the edge.

I'm curious if you've ever had a real job? Have you made it to what I would guess to be your late 30's or early 40's on the trust fund while going to the kind of cocktail parties where you fart into wine glasses and admire the smell while armchair quarterbacking the split-second decisions these first responders have to make. Do you levy for higher taxes so we can help the poor in Africa, while scoffing at the homeless Vietnam vet asking for help on your walk to Starbucks? Is your dad's law firm the one representing the victim's family?

Do you think he has secretly always wanted to run someone over? He figured the best way to do it was to become a firefighter at an airport where there is less than a 1% chance he'd ever encounter an accident, let alone an ejected body, let alone an alive ejected body? What a lottery he has won, now all he has to do is convince the likes of you that it wasn't premeditated or intentional. He needs to convince you of some far-fetched theory that perhaps he got into his career wanting to save the very life whose death will presumably haunt him for the rest of his life.

If the pilots had landed the aircraft and taxied to the gate to offload passengers on this clear, calm, sun-shiny day, there wouldn't be any of the 181 injuries and 3 deaths to speak of.


My point, and what Michael and John agree with, is that without the need for a firetruck at the scene of an airplane crash, there wouldn't be a firetruck at the scene of an airplane crash. In fact, there wouldn't be an airplane crash.

Those are complex ideas for someone like you to imagine I'm sure, but I know you can do it with time and effort.
btweston
btweston -4
Wow. You have no idea what you're talking about. You actually might be insane.

No, I don't think that the driver of the truck had some perverse desire to kill someone. That, and the conclusion you've drawn from that, is a truly bizarre idea. Yes, I'm aware that the pilots of the plane committed a horrible blunder.

But the driver of the truck could have avoided crushing the girl to death by paying attention to what he was doing. You can't just absolve someone of responsibility because something else happened. You have to drive the truck correctly. That's why people pay you. That's not really so complex. No need to go to the ad hominem. That's bush league.

I have no idea how you came up with anything that you've written, nor do I know where your dramatic egocentrism comes from. You clearly know nothing about my financial situation or employment history. Africa and... Vietnam vets?... aren't really germane here. What is your problem? People don't agree with must have trust funds and fart into wine glasses? And bringing my dad (who isn't a lawyer, by the way), into the conversation, I mean, that's some pathology right there. Bush league, friend.
joelwiley
joel wiley 2
Paying attention to what, flaming plane which moments before contained over 300 souls, various plane parts separated from the a/c and might damage tires? Agree this was a tragedy, disagree w/ fault on firefigher part.
Moviela
I have such empathy for the girl's family. She did manage to survive being ejected from an airplane crash. I think the protocols are foolish that direct the aid away from anybody. Even if the person has died the remains must be treated with care and reverence.

No one can say she would have recovered from the crash injuries because she died as a result of being crushed by a fire truck. There is plenty of blame to be passed out. Money will change hands, and law firms will be the biggest winners. I can assure you the family of the young lady have no interest in money. They would like the airline to hire qualified pilots, and the fire department have better training for the task they signed on to do.
joelwiley
joel wiley 6
I agree with you in part. Where I disagree is regarding the protocols being 'foolish'. The protocols are based on the idea of saving the greatest number rather than focusing on each particular individual in a mass casualty situation.

Thank you for the assurance that the family has no interest in money. While I must take that with a grain of salt, I am confident that the attorney they have retained does not share in their disinterest.
Moviela
Protocols are foolish that promote the so-called greater good theory. Humans are competent enough to protect all lives. It is inexcusable to take a position that allows some to die so others can live. I offer that is offensive to traditional innate values of human beings.
PhotoFinish
PhotoFinish 2
You thinking of only a slice of the picture. But the reality is there were 300 victims.

The available resources couldn't take care of all 300 victims at once. You must have a system to prioritize who you should help first.

And no you can't help everyone. (Not immediately.) you also can't go back and make decisions in hindsight. You have to have a system that helps the rescuers help the greatest number as quickly as possible, but those who need help the most.

You can't look at the decision as just one person. One victim would take one crew and one apparatus out of service. Taking care of only one person wouldn't have as much of an impact on operations as many. But there were victims literally scateree across the airfield. There were already many, many victims that were very sick. Some number were carried away, others assisted, possibly others collapsed further from the airplane. Unfortunately, this victim couldn't get herself to where the sick were being treated and neither did anyone else. This left behind were left fir dead OR were very brave firefighters who were ridking their lives. Their primary responsibility was to put out the fire. An explosion could kill firefighters, rescuers and additional passengers.

Being only one person warps the expectations. But if there were 15 'bodies' needing immediate life saving treatment, and 9 fire apparatus, and you expected them to stop for and save 'every life' all the fire apparatus would've been side tracked and not available for their primary fire suppression duties.

Both were very critical and time sensitive. The girl needed medical care or she would die. The fire needed to be put out so the plane wouldn't explode, so that rescuers could approach and help any victims that were left behind.

While she was visible, they took care not to further injure her. When she became covered with foam, unfortunately accidents happened.
joelwiley
joel wiley 1
I think you are going from the specific to the general and go beyond my point. I do not consider that triage in a mass casualty situation as in this incident as offensive or inexcusable. While not wandering into a philosophical discussion of traditional innate human values, I will say that what I find objectionable is the attorney's action here. I see it as similar to suing on behalf of the child not selected in Sophie's Choice.
avihais
...there's a body there. Did he say "body" because she had been checked and not was not alive? Definitely the need for a full review of procedures and again, how many airport fire attendance equipment have infrared body detection equipment? Two different trucks means two separate scenarios. A very rare accident with the initial cause total negligence of the pilots and tragic that THREE people died as a result of the pilots.
PhotoFinish
PhotoFinish 4
When they first got there, and were setting up their scene, they wEr mire careful. But soon the fire which was already soreafjbgbkbti the passenger compartment started to take off.

The fire apparatus then started to drive circles around the plane to spray fire suppression foam on the fire.

Unfortunately the 'body' was in the wrong place. At first, they could avoid her. But after she was covered up in foam, it was nearly impossible that one or more trucks would not run over her in any one of their circuits around the plane fighting the fire.

They were endangering their own lives being present at the scene of a major airliner engulfed in flames. They ran toward the burning plane, when everyone else (who could, that is) ran away.
planotxwx
Dave Wood 1
I've watched the videos and it seems to me that this was a preventable accident. Also, looked like little to no coordination among firefighters. Lots of yelling and confusion all through the videos I have watched.
kwu20001
kev wu 2
From what I watched they had literally some coordination but in the midst of the chaos, a fire truck just came unknowingly crushed that unfortunate victim
PhotoFinish
PhotoFinish 6
No one watching this video (not even someone with your powers to see things not there) can see a fire truck run over this girl.

While she was visible, they were careful to not run over her.

Unfortunately, the fire really got going. The fire fighters had to spray large quantities of fire suppression foam on the plane until the fire was suppressed. At some point, the foam entirely obstructed any visibility of thus young girl's body.

You can see an imagine of the same scene completely covered on foam, briefly near the end of the video.

But this video doesn't ever show a truck run over the girl. If such a video existed, the ambulance chasing lawyer would've leaked that video at the time this video was leaked.
kwu20001
kev wu 1
It a truly tragic incident that happened that day
joelwiley
joel wiley 6
She was an unfortunate victim of the pilots' demonstrated incompetence when trying to landing on a clear day, not of the fire department. IMHO
MANBOI
MANBOI -3
I didn't see anybody come out of that plane the whole time they were walking past and pointing out her body and running over it not once, but twice. At the same time I saw people go into the plane. I don't recall stories of heroics of responders carrying victims out of the burning plane. As I recall, the victims all walked away before the fire consumed the wreckage. From all the airport disaster drills I've seen it appears SFO fire fighters have never drilled. They didn't even check the victim or do any form of triage according to all reports and this video.
PhotoFinish
PhotoFinish 2
Firefighters (and before them, police officers) entered the burning plane and helped get passengers out of the plane, including carrying some of them*. That is something quite heroic, a selfless act unlike anything that you've ever done or ever would do.


* a number of passengers have been paralyzed ever since the moment that the pilots' actions led to the violent ripping of their bodies.

登入

還沒有帳戶嗎? 現在就註冊(免費),設置諸多客制化功能、航班提醒等等!
本網站使用cookie。您使用並繼續瀏覽本網站,即表示您接受這一點。
退出
您知道FlightAware航班跟蹤是由廣告支持嗎?
通過允許展示來自FlightAware.com的廣告,您可以幫助我們使FlightAware保持免費。我們努力使我們的廣告保持相關性,同時不顯突兀,以創造一流的體驗。在FlightAware上將廣告加入白名單快速而簡單,或者請您考慮選擇我們的高級帳戶.
退出