Examining the Standard of Care for Failure to Divert During In-Flight Emergencies
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In-flight medical emergencies create challenging decisions for airline pilots. While the passenger would like to see the plane land as quickly as possible, diverting the flight is often dangerous, impracticable, or unnecessary. Airlines have developed routine policies and procedures in their efforts to provide the captain with some instruction and certainty in deciding whether to divert. There is less clarity, however, in the courts' review of the pilot's decision. Courts will apply a different standard of care depending on the type of flight and the jurisdiction in which the case is brought. On international flights (and domestic legs of international itineraries), a captain's decision to divert will be analyzed under the framework of Article 17 of the Montreal Convention. The Supreme Court has provided definitions for the relevant terms of the Convention, but as is often the case, further case law has been necessary to explain the definitions. On purely domestic flights, a captain's decision will either be subject to the general standard of care stated in the Federal Aviation Regulations or the more stringent state law common-carrier standard. Deciding between these two standards is matter of federal preemption, and there is not a consensus among the U.S. circuit courts on which standard should apply. After discussing and explaining the courts' approaches and interpretations in cases involving international and domestic flights, the article concludes that airlines should endeavor to protect themselves from liability by developing, installing, and applying standard practices for responding to in-flight medical emergencies.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".