Posted on 01/10/2014 1:52:43 PM PST by The Sons of Liberty
A month after a small plane crash in Hawaii, a surviving passenger shows GoPro footage and even a selfie taken during the ordeal.
Would you have done the same? Ferdinand Puentes was one of nine passengers in a 2002 Cessna Grand Caravan which suddenly suffered engine failure off Kalaupapa, Molokai in Hawaii last month. As he heard the engine fail and saw the plane heading for the water, one of his first instincts was to turn on his GoPro camera and film what might have been his own demise. As KHON-TV reports, Puentes knew the danger he was in, yet the decision to film as much as possible might perplex a few. He managed to get out of the plane alive and survived the crash. However, while he was floating on a seat cushion and wearing his life raft, he took a selfie.
Was the impulse to record just a natural reaction? After all, any bystander or news organization would have likely done the same thing. And these days everyone is using their phones to film just about everything they see. But wouldn't one's first instinct be to try to contact family and friends to say goodbye? Perhaps that did happen. The footage reflects a quite stunning lack of panic. The passengers behave in an orderly manner. There is no screaming or pushing. No one seems frantic at all. Loretta Fuddy, Hawaii's 65-year-old state director of health, died in the crash, despite managing to leave the plane. In watching Puentes talk to KHON-TV, though, it's evident that the footage brings back painful memories. Would everyone want to have such ready access to a reminder? Or would some prefer to forget? "You could have died," Puentes told KHON-TV. "There's so much variations that could have happened for the worse."
Keep believing what you want, but it mighty damn CONVENIENT!
“Keep believing what you want, but it mighty damn CONVENIENT!”
Sounds good, but it really doesn’t make much sense. Convenient how? Fuddy wasn’t testifying anywhere, or writing a tell-all memoir. She was, as far as anyone knows, just another loyal Obama drone. If they really did “rub her out”, as some folks seem convinced, then it would just give a great reason to anyone who knew anything bad about Obama to go public right now. So, it would seem to me very inconvenient.
You are misreading the CPR protocol.
In the flowchart, question 1 is “Is patient hypothermic?” If No (as in Ms. Fuddy’s case), you proceed to question 2.
Question 2 is “Apneic, pulseless, unresponsive?” Obviously, the responder found Ms. Fuddy to not be breathing, to not have a pulse, and to not be responsive. So, when he answered yes to that question, he moved to the next question...
“Victim obviously dead?” There is a note to this question which explains:
“Obviously dead patients include those that are decapitated, incinerated, have major organs (heart, lungs, brain or liver) separated, or for whom rigor mortis or lividity is present.”
“Includes those”... not “are limited to those”... Big difference!
Sort of like saying “Obviously even numbers include 2, 4, 6, and 8.” Yes, include. Not limited to.
The rescuer obviously found Ms. Fuddy to be obviously dead. So he moved on to the survivors he could assist, as an logical person would recognize as the appropriate thing to do in the circumstances.
Who took the photo?
http://www.hawaiinewsnow.com/slideshow?widgetid=100895
If you mean the sleeping young man, it’s the last image on the slideshow.
Who took the photo? Now there’s an interesting question...I can’t answer.
The photo on the right came from his facebook page. The one on the left is from the slideshow.
That was a great post. It reminded me of a wonderful Michael Caine movie, A Shock to the System. Caine was an executive in a powerful firm, but his career path kept getting blocked by miscellaneous ppl. One by one the ppl standing in his way died. A certain detective was onto Caine, and in a very strong scene he says, ‘Sudden death hasn’t been all that bad for you.”
I know it’s just fiction, but it was a very entertaining movie. One might truly speak the same line to Obama: sudden death—such as the VERY sudden death of the gay choir director at Trinity, whose mother thought he was overly “close” to Obama—hasn’t been bad for Obama at all. If it’s all just a series of coincidences...well, the odds just don’t stretch that far.
“it mighty damn CONVENIENT!”
If it was the only sudden, ‘convenient’ death associated w Obama we’d be out on a limb. But there have been others. Do you recall the gay choir director, rumored (by his mother, no less) to be intimate w Obama, who died suddenly immediately prior to Obama’s presidential candidacy announcement? Of course, that was just a ‘coincidence’.
So was the execution style murder of Larry Bland, a young gay man who attended Trinity, and who was killed around the same time as Donald Young. Just a strange coincidence, that gay men in Obama’s longtime church got shot in the back of the head at the inception of Obama’s national political career.
Others cd add to the list. I’m not really interesting in cataloguing every single incident. The fact is, ppl who might have harmed Obama have dropped dead first. Was Fuddy in that category? We don’t know. Such a [purportedly] deeply religious person may have been having second thoughts about the forged BC. She may have communicated her unease over it. If she did, we’ll never know. But we certainly can’t rule out that possibility. Not having definite knowledge about something is not the same as knowing for a fact it could never possibly have happened.
Did you not read the footnote saying that in determining if a person is unresponsive they should use a stethoscope and heart monitor, if possible?
That’s because when you’ve got helicopter, waves, etc. it would be pretty easy to miss hearing or seeing something significant. And unless he sat around there for 10 minutes monitoring the pulse the whole time he had no way of knowing whether she could be revived through CPR, since he has no way of knowing whether her heart stopped beating 30 minutes ago, or 30 seconds ago. There’s no way to tell by a simple pulse check whether a person is recoverable or not.
Due diligence would have required him to hoist her up just so the instruments could be used to determine for sure whether she had a pulse.
No matter how you slice it, this rescuer did NOT follow the protocols. And the way you’d have it, every time a rescuer came upon somebody who had no pulse or heartbeat the rescuer can declare them dead - even if their heart was beating just 2 seconds before the pulse was taken. Is that really how you think the medical community works?
May you receive the same care that you espouse for others.
I came across a few articles I've never seen before. There's some info about Loretta Fuddy, I hadn't heard before.
I'm going to post links here:
What are the chances? The mysterious death of Loretta Fuddy
http://canadafreepress.com/index.php/article/60406#.UtXcdqx3uUk
Given her role in the authentication of the controversial document, Ms. Fuddy was named in two affidavits (one public, one sealed) filed in the U.S. District Court, Western District of Washington on October 18, 2013, by Douglas Vogt, citing twenty points of forgery that comprise misprision of treason and misprision of felony. Vogt, with researcher and document expert Paul Irey, investigated the intricacies of the forgery. Mr. Vogt’s affidavit and Ms. Fuddy’s involvement gained national attention when he was interviewed on The Hagmann & Hagmann Report on December 4, 2013, exactly one week to the day before her tragic death on December 11, 2013. The detailed three-hour audio testimony of Douglas Vogt can be heard here, and the report detailing Ms. Fuddy’s possible role here.
Follow the money
Since her death, portions related to Loretta Fuddy in the sealed affidavit filed in U.S. Federal Court have been made public. Of particular interest are her financial reports detailing her income and expenses in 2011 and 2012. Each report is filed in January for the previous year.
According to Mr. Vogt, a large and as yet unanswered income disparity was found between the two reports. In short, during her first year as Hawaii’s Director of Health, which is also the time she authenticated Obama’s COLB, Ms. Fuddy’s gross income was reportedly less than $100,000. Nonetheless, her financials show that she apparently paid down her mortgage and decreased her liabilities by at least $50,000 and perhaps as much as $75,000 more than what she grossed that year. Where did that money come from? While there may well be a legitimate explanation for this disparity, it was not disclosed on the financial forms she filed with the Hawaii State Ethics Commission.
Details of the Obama forgery exposed
http://canadafreepress.com/index.php/article/59674#.UtXczax3uUk
Note 3, which are you referencing, specifically does NOT apply in this situation.
Do you see where it says “Victim obviously dead?” with Note 2 written below? When the rescuer answers Yes to that, he follows the flowchart to “CPR may be withheld.” For the rescuer, that is the end of the flowchart.
Note 3 ONLY applies if the rescuer had decided that the answer to “Victim obviously dead?” had been No.
Based on the flowchart, the rescuer has been granted the authority to decide, in emergency situations like this, if the victim is obviously dead. You may not like that, but he IS following protocol. He is prioritizing rescues so that scarce resources can be more efficiently used and the maximum numbers of victims can be rescued.
You are obsessed on the idea that a rescuer is incapable of determining if a person is obviously dead. They don’t spell out all the things he may look for. Fixed and dilated pupils? A good indication of serious problems. Can you imagine how fast a body will cool off in the ocean once the heart stops beating? By the time the rescuer got to her, she was probably quite cold to the touch. I’m not a trained rescuer, but even I know those obvious things. The rescuer certainly knows more signs.
So, in this situation, you are flat out wrong. The rescuer followed protocol and you flunked flowchart interpretation 101.
Thanks for that info. Iirc, there was a big discussion about it on FR at one time. The usual crowd of Obama-defenders claimed Fuddy sold some property, or more likely mortgaged some property, to acct for the extra income. I didn’t follow the debate closely enough to figure out whether the Obots were right or not. Perhaps someone who recalls those discussions can fill in the blanks? [I.e.: the income disparity was discovered previously, apart from the Vogt info. Again, that is from the best of my memory. I hope someone more knowledgeable about it weighs in. Fwiw.]
I keep waiting for Zullo’s earth-shaking information, now supposedly in March.
Thanks for those updates. More than likely something will shake loose before too long. Obama skated when his approval #s were higher, but they are and have been lousy for some time now. Unfortunately this is how our ‘justice’ system works. Popular first ‘black’ POTUS skates. Unpopular first ‘black’ POTUS skates on thin ice. Sooner or later it will break.
Low body temperature is an indication that the hypothermia protocol is to be followed, which skips the “obviously dead” question and goes immediately to CPR. So if her body was cold they DEFINITELY didn’t follow protocol.
Fixed and dilated pupils are an indication that CPR is to be performed, if you read Footnote 3. As are probably all other readily-apparent indicators that you might mention EXCEPT for stuff like decapitation, incineration, organs separated from the body, and rigor mortis. There are only so many indicators of death, and the whole purpose of this protocol is to separate those indicators into the “all dead” and “mostly dead” categories (ala “Princess Bride”)
Head separated from shoulders = all dead.
Pupils fixed and dilated = mostly dead/CPR mandated.
As long as somebody is only MOSTLY dead, they are to be given CPR so if they can still recover they will be given the chance.
There is nothing in that protocol about “scarce resources”. This protocol is to be followed even when they’ve got one person and all the resources in the world. It’s not about RATIONING care, although folks like you always want to make it into rationing. It’s about how you know whether a person cannot be revived so your efforts are futile.
There were at least 6 planes there and 8 people who needed to be pulled from the water - all of them in life jackets holding their heads above water, none of them in danger of hypothermia based on them being transported in sitting position rather than horizontally. That’s close to one plane for each person, or maybe one plane for every 2 people. The Coast Guard averaged 1.5 persons rescued for each helicopter, over a 3-hour period. They averaged one injured person for each helicopter.
I guess it was so critical for them to pick up the 70-year-old, waving, smiling guy right then and there rather than take 2 minutes to hoist Fuddy up to the helicopter to be further evaluated first, that they had to break the protocols defining what constitutes ALL DEAD and what constitutes MOSTLY DEAD/mandatory CPR.
Those 2 minutes might not have made much difference to the waving, smiling people of the world, but to somebody who is unresponsive 2 minutes is a lifetime. Literally the difference between life and death. Anybody who has been trained in emergency response knows that KEENLY. And anybody who doesn’t know that has no business being around people whose lives may be hanging in a 2-minute balance.
What follows is a summary of what the protocols say about specific diagnostic information. As I mentioned before, a body temperature lower than 95 degrees requires the EMT to use the hypothermia protocol which goes immediately into CPR upon finding the victim unresponsive. So your “the body is cold so they must be OBVIOUSLY dead” argument is blown out of the water. The question for you is what indicators would the swimmers have observed to call Fuddy OBVIOUSLY DEAD, that are NOT already covered in the protocols as summarized below? What other symptoms besides the ones listed below did PJ Ornot observe that allowed him to put Fuddy in the “ALL DEAD” category
Here is the summary:
If the victim is not obviously dead they are to be checked to see if they are apneic (non-breathing), unresponsive; pulseless for 10 or more minutes. These are the criteria:
“Obviously dead patients include those that are decapitated, incinerated, have major organs (heart, lungs, brain or liver) separated, or for whom rigor mortis or lividity is present.” (Rigor mortis is stiffness; lividity is pooling of blood in the lowest part of the body.
In determining whether the patient is “apneic, unresponsive, or pulseless”, this is said:
“The following must be observed and recorded by CG EMS provider: No pulse in carotid artery or cardiac apex for 60 secondes (if available, a cardiac monitor must be used); No respiratory effort for 60 seconds despite open airway (if available, a stethoscope must be used for confirmation); Unresponsive to painful stimulus such as a sternal rub and no tendon reflexes; No papillary reflexes (i.e. pupils non-responsive to light and remain fixed and dilated) and no corneal reflexes; No evidence of drug overdose as the cause of unresponsiveness.”
So all these signs are signs of obvious death:
Decapitation
Incineration
Have major organs (heart, lungs, brain or liver) separated
Rigor mortis (stiffness)
Lividity (pooling of blood in the lowest part of the body)
And all these are merely signs of unresponsiveness/the need for CPR, and NOT of “obvious death”, since they are to be checked for when it is NOT an obvious death:
No pulse in carotid artery or cardiac apex for 60 seconds
No respiratory effort for 60 seconds despite open airway
Unresponsive to painful stimulus such as a sternal rub and no tendon reflexes
No papillary reflexes (pupils non-responsive to light and remain fixed and dilated
No corneal reflexes
No evidence of drug overdose as the cause of unresponsiveness
I’ve been giving our comments some thought and I have realized where we have both gone wrong.
Consider the job of the rescuer, the first contact person the victims see. He is not going to perform CPR, he is not going to set bones, he is not going to bandage wounds. That CPR flowchart is not relevant to him. He would never answer “Yes, I need to start CPR,” because he would never perform CPR in the water.
The job of the rescue person in the water is triage. He has to prioritize survivors. No, this is not rationing care. This is prioritizing getting the folks from the water into the rescue vehicles where trained medical personnel do their thing. I have no idea how they decide who to rescue first. I imagine there’s a whole set of protocols dealing with triage.
I’m going to drop out of this conversation because I defer to the expertise of U.S. Coast Guard aviation survival technician P.J. Ornot. He’s trained and he was there in the water assessing the survivors. He knows the proper protocol. According to http://www.kitv.com/news/hawaii/a-us-coast-guard-rescue-swimmer-describes-the-crash-scene-as-surreal/-/8905354/23462950/-/ycwwwuz/-/index.html:
“Rescue swimmer PJ Ornot first spotted State Health Director Loretta Fuddy. He touched and shook her but with no response protocol meant move on.”
The article goes on to say that Ornot then rescued a tired and exhausted elderly woman and a man with a clear cut and bump on his head. By then, a second Coast Guard rescuer had arrived and rescued a 70 year old man before moving on to Ms. Fuddy. The article states that Ms. Fuddy was “retrieved” after the 70 year old man.
Yes, that’s what I meant. Who other than the sleeping guy took his photo and why? Or are we to believe that in hospital he was allowed to keep his camera-on-a-stick so he could take another selfie?
Rescue swimmers are required to be and remain certified as EMT’s, so they are “potential SAR EMS responders” (SAR EMS responders are “search and rescue emergency medical system responders”). The USCG’s Rescue Swimmers Manual says
“2.
Helicopter Rescue Swimmer Capabilities. The RS must have the flexibility,strength, endurance, and equipment to function for 30 minutes in heavy seas, and the skills to provide basic pre-hospital life support for the rescued individual(s). RS Emergency Medical Technician (EMT) skills may also be used during other Search and Rescue (SAR) cases in which swimming ability is not required.”
And this particular protocol says:
“Operational commanders with SAR responsibilities should ensure that all potential SAR EMS responders and SAR OPCEN watchstanders are familiar with this protocol. MLC(K) should ensure that all medical officers are familiar with the protocol”
I have looked through the USCG rescue swimmers training manual, and the only reference I could find to any kind of priority or discretionary choices is when all the victims are on a raft and the swimmer has to decide which to send up first. When they’re all in the same place you can make discretionary decisions BASED ON WHO IS IN THE MOST CRITICAL CONDITION. When you have no way of knowing what condition everybody is in, you lift them as you come to them - ESPECIALLY if they are in critical condition.
Nowhere does it talk about not lifting up a person who is unresponsive. They have a special section on dealing with non-responsive victims and the assumption is that they WILL lift them from the water. Nowhere does it say to pass them by.
Ornot came to Fuddy first. The next person was 100 yards away. What was he gonna do? Go look at all the people and then decide which one deserved to be rescued? He had no way of knowing whether Fuddy was dead. He hadn’t spoken to Yamamoto so he had no idea how long she had been unresponsive. How then could he say, “Let me check everybody else first and if there’s nobody else in the middle of cardiac arrest I’ll come back and get you”?
It's certainly possible, this guy filmed from the moment the alarm went off and as the aircraft went down, he filmed his feet as he stepped out of the aircraft down the stairs and the undercarriage while it was still partly submerged and most of the passengers including himself by using the swivel on the extension-stick...so either getting a shot of himself with his eyes closed or asking a nurse to do it for him, wouldn't surprise me one bit.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.