Medical Briefcase For In-Flight Patient Evaluation 126
Makarand writes "On average one plane a day makes an unscheduled landing somewhere around
the world when a passenger unexpectedly falls ill and requires medical
attention. Diversion costs for an airline, related to fuel
expenses and cost of putting people in hotels, can be anywhere between
$50,000- $100,000 for each diversion. Now Airbus, in collaboration
with the French Space agency, has come up with a solution in the form
of a satellite-connected medical briefcase to determine if the patient needs urgent medical attention on the ground before making a diversion
according to this
BBC News article. A crew member
with proper training can use the device to complete a medical examination
of the patient in 2 minutes and download the data using satellite in
real time to a hospital. A diversion is made if the emergency physician feels that the patient needs medical attention on the ground. Airbus believes that as planes
get bigger, fuel efficient and fly longer hours with more number of
people the chances of someone needing medical attention will increase
creating a market for this device."
Hrmm (Score:3, Funny)
Good thing I'm not in charge of it...
"this man needs urgent medical attention!"
"yeah yeah, hang on, just wait for this mp3 to finish downloading."
Inflight Patent Examination? (Score:2)
So you get onto a plane, hand your patent claims to the flight attendant and they give you the result before you land? Kool, I mean that is going to cut down on the number of bogus patents getting filled, at least they will have been reviewed by a flight attendant, that can only be an improvement on the current USPTO scheme.
Oh patient examination
Hooters? (Score:3, Funny)
Of course, if they do get one, how many guys are going to fake it in order to be examined?
Re:Hooters? (Score:1)
Better than nothing, but... (Score:4, Insightful)
"In two minutes you have a complete examination of the patient, you send this via the computer to the doctor, who is now able to make a complete assessment of the patient's status."
Especially compared to the data the device actually collects:
A crew member with proper training can now take basic heart, blood, temperature and sugar level readings.
Not much info to provide a complete examination, isn't it?
Phone is enough if the infos are like that (Score:2, Insightful)
So all they need is a phone. So the equipment they need is already on board.
Re:Better than nothing, but... (Score:4, Interesting)
Not much info to provide a complete examination, isn't it?
1. Heart Info: Any kind of dysrhythmia as well as immediate signs of heart failure and circulatory collapse (such as any of the kinds of shock).
2. Blood: A vast number of things.
3. Temperature: Fevers? (see 1)
4. Blood sugars: Hyper/Hypoglycaemia. Which sometimes can look quite similar and therefore can be difficult to treat (the treatments are opposite in nature).
I'd say this covers a lot. There's not a lot else you'd do in a general first work-up. Obviously any patient notes could also be sent to the doctor, adding to the clinical picture.
Re:Better than nothing, but... (Score:2, Interesting)
Temperature: A re-usable electric thermometer costs $10. Do you need to spend 5000 times as much to enable a flight attendant to take a temeprature?
Blood: This is more interesting. Will they be drawing venous blood (with a syringe and needle)? Probably not, too complicated. So they will be using a fingerstick as used now for glucose readings. This limits the possible tests. But the only test of any real value in an emergency situtation might be a troponin or CPK level (measures of heart damage as seen in a heart attack). I'm not sure that the technology exists to do this (1) in a drop of blood, (2) instantly, and (3) accurately (undercall: lawsuit; overcall: unnecessary emergency landing). What else are you going to diagnose? A low potassium level? So, give all sick passengers a glass of orange juice.
Sugar levels: Big deal. Easily done on the cheap. Low sugar ==> give patient something sweet. High sugar ==> rarely a true emergency. I suppose the blood monitoring could detect ketoacidosis, and diabetic ketoacidosis (DKA) is an emergency, but patients in DKA are generally (1) comatose, (2) hypotensive (low blood pressure), (3) have a history of diabetes. You don't need to be a rocket scientist to figure this out, let alone a $50,000 medical kit. (FYI, if someone with diabetes is comatose, give them sugar. If they have low glucose, it will cure them. If they have too high glucose, it won't hurt them, just another drop in the bucket.)
Agree with the other posters, this kit will represent a lawsuit waiting to happen, and it's hard to imagine (given the BBC statistics) that it is cost-effective.
--A medical doctor
Re:Better than nothing, but... (Score:2)
So strap a parachute on the patient and eject 'em over a city. (No, not seriously.)
Re:Better than nothing, but... (Score:1)
--But no, that would make too much sense.
(Flight attendant)
"...Is there a doctor on the plane??"
"...No? Well how about a Lawyer, because I think this dying guy's family is about to sue our asses off..."
Let's do the math.. (Score:3, Insightful)
Let's assume $80k, and one plane a day. That totals $29,200,000. Is adding and maintaining this system to every major plane in the world going to cost more than $29 million a year? You bet!!
Either the BBC is spouting incorrect statistics here, or is this is another union/Mason orchestrated contract.
I don't know how many major airlines there are in the world, but even if it's just 20.. are you saying that each airline would spend $X gazillion on this super medical system, or just $1.46 million each on annoying diversions?
Something does not add up here.
Re:Let's do the math.. (Score:2)
Re:Let's do the math.. (Score:2)
Speaking of amateur medics, anyone know how much training they're giving people on using those defibrillators? I have this nightmare that they'll zap me not realizing I'm just a deep napper.
Re:Let's do the math.. (Score:2)
Automatic External Defibrillators require very little training. The have a built-in computer that analyzes your heart rhythm, and won't shock you unless you need it.
Re:Let's do the math.. (Score:2)
Defibrillators (Score:1)
Re:defibrillators (Score:1)
1) Open case,
2) Follow instructions
a) press button: machnie tells you to connect wires
b) connect wires to machine
c) press button: machine tells you to attach sensors
d) attach sensors to patient; grease paddles
e) press button: machine scans for fibrillation; if it cannot detect a valid hearbeat that is fibrilating, it turns off
f) machine warns to prepare for first shock
g) press button: shock administered
(repeat e, f, g up to three times)
The unit we were shown had cute diagrams to help you along in case you didn't speak English, etc. They seemed to have taken great pains to prevent it from firing when it is not absolutely neecessary.
Each one cost several grand. I think they also were selling ones for individual/home use, or trying to get the license hurdles past so that they eventually can.
This is where the lame jokes come in... (Score:1)
2 minutes broken down thus:
1 min 50 sec to determine if you've got sufficient health insurance coverage
10 sec for mouth-to-mouth by really hot flight attendant (Whaddya mean she ain't qualified?)
Motivation (Score:1, Redundant)
Has our lifestyle actually come to the point where getting to the meeting on time is more important than getting medical attention to another human? This tool is nothing more than a way to play the odds and increase profitibility.
Re:Motivation (Score:1)
Re:Motivation (Score:1)
Long time savings, right? (Score:1)
"The technology is not cheap - it costs about $50,000 - but the long-term savings for an airline could be enormous. "
Right...
"On average one plane a day has to make an unscheduled landing somewhere around the world because a passenger has fallen ill and requires medical treatment."
We have thousands of flight companies. And most of them have at least a hundred planes. "Airlines want to keep costs to a minimum." One landing for a medical emergency costs 50 - 100 000;
So, putting a 50 000 $ equipment for the hundreds of planes of the hundreds of companies because of 1 landing daily for all the airlines
I can imagine only companies of the size of British Airways being interested in this technology, and even those on the intercontinental flights only, and on the new planes only.
Then, in case the 2 minute online checkup shows the patient is ok but the online analysis goes wrong, will they be blaming a fallen internet connection, technical fault, or generally who will have the responsability for the analysis, the doctor or airline or the crew?
Re:Long time savings, right? (Score:2, Interesting)
Not equal to MCSEs, I hope. (Score:4, Funny)
Hopefully this will not be the "proper training" which lets people believe that a newly trained MCSE should have "root" access.
Re: (Score:1)
You just know it's going to happen... (Score:3, Interesting)
Can you just imagine what kind of field day the lawyers, press and politicians would have in that scenario? Can you see how fast the relevant airline's stock would plummet? And how hard a blow it would make to their future bookings?
Nothing cripples a business faster than a reputation for putting profits before the safety and lives of their customers - just ask Firestone.
The day that airlines start rolling out these devices is the day to start dumping your airline (and other aviation) stock. Oh yeah, you might think about changing your choice of carrier too - or perhaps even taking a slower, more eco-friendly and safer form of transport (hint: trains).
Re:You just know it's going to happen... (Score:2)
Re:You just know it's going to happen... (Score:1)
Are airlines going to staff someone who is a competent EMT? I doubt it. There is a lot of training and continuing education, not to mention experience, required to be an EMT. That is about the minimum level of competence acceptable in court to be involved in these kinds of diagnoses.
I doubt it would even get into a court room. The ambulance-chasing lawyers will be on the first mistake faster than you can say "huge out-of-court settlement."
Re:You just know it's going to happen... (Score:3, Funny)
Gotta love those eco-friendly trans-atlantic train lines
Re:You just know it's going to happen... (Score:1, Flamebait)
There's always one (or two) isn't there? For your education (if not entertainment), let me just hit you with a few basic facts:
1. 95% of Americans don't have a passport.
If most Americans don't bother to get a passport what does that suggest to you about the frequency with which they make transatlantic trips?
2. Most Americans who board a plane do so to fly domestically.
And, seeing as only a limited number of them are travelling to and from Hawaii, that means almost all of them could reach their destination by train or even coach.
Is flying from New York to Philadelphia really that much faster or convenient than the alternatives?
3. There is another method of crossing the oceans. It's called a boat.
Newsflash: Christopher Columbus didn't travel to the new world on American Airlines.
4. Just because you can open your mouth and say something, it doesn't mean that you have to do so.
Try resisting the need to comment where none is necessary. If you must comment then at least try to come up with something vaguely intelligent - trust me, it really doesn't hurt to engage your brain before you open your mouth.
But thanks* for taking a quote our of context. What I actually said was:
Oh yeah, you might think about changing your choice of carrier too - or perhaps even taking a slower, more eco-friendly and safer form of transport (hint: trains).
Fail to spot the word "perhaps" there, buddy? I think, perhaps, you did.
(*This is irony. If you have trouble understanding it - just like you have seem to have trouble understanding other basic words - then, please, invest in a dictionary.)
Trains? (Score:2)
Even within a continent, time is money, and taking a 2 hour plane flight beats a 7 hour train, if you can even get a train that goes where you need to go, when you need to go.
Re:Trains? (Score:2)
Let's see? Zurich to Frankfurt by train 4 hours. By plane 50 minutes + 30 minutes to the airport + 90 minutes in advance for check in and security + 40 minutes = 3 hrs 30 minutes. This doesn't account for delays, which you will encounter virtually by default. It doesn't account for the front seat squeezing your knee during the entire flight and it doesn't account for the fat Russian gentleman seat neighboors of yours using up half of your seat and spilling his bloody mary on your nice beige suit.
Another example ? Brussel to Paris by Thalys. [thalys.com] Takes 90 minutes. This can be the time you need to get to the airport via taxi, if traffic is dense.
Another really nice option can be night trains (if you're a good sleeper that is) in luxury (sleeping car) or on the cheap (sleeperettes) you just sleep off the trip. You're welcome to try that in that overcrowded 25 years old Alitalia 747-200 that flew me to Tokyo.
And lastly: I almost always chose the train for trips up to 8 hours. Otherwise I'm aggravated for two days and trains are nice, spacy, clean and convenient. But that of course is a matter of preference.
Re:Trains? (Score:2)
I agree that for Europe, trains are much to be preferred for many commuters, and some holiday travel. You have the advantage of many centers of population, relatively close together. This is not true for the US, Canada, and many other places with vast distances to be crossed.
Aerospace trends... (Score:2, Insightful)
SCTV's Emergency Caterer (Score:2)
SCTV, of course, had their own show called Emergency Caterer, where the emergencies were gatherings that ran out of food and the guests collapsed from hunger. The Emergency Caterers showed up with their tackle boxes stocked with snacks, which they stuffed into unconscious party goer's mouths with what looked like oil-can funnels. Coming from an immigrant household where food hospitality was a big deal, trust me, that skit was funny.
Of course 9-11 is an excuse for airlines not to offer more than 90 calories worth of food to anyone paying less than 2 grand for their ticket, so we need Emergency Caterer more than the medical telemetry setup.
Re:Aerospace trends... (Score:1)
Dammit Jim! (Score:2, Funny)
Medical Malpractice (Score:4, Interesting)
With the already sky-high rates of malpractice lawsuits and the incredibly high cost of malpractice insurance, I don't see this a cost effective or practical way to determine if medical care is needed. The random "is there a doctor on the flight" may be much more effective.. or even hiring a doctor for each flight may be more cost effective as well, if one considers all the possible lawsuits from an undertrained flight attendant using a medical device such as this.
Besides, combine the chance of misdiagnosis with the chance that the person doesn't understand how to correctly use the machine (this is a technological device, folks) and it's a lawsuit waiting to happen.
-Matt
Re:Medical Malpractice (Score:1)
And what do you do for a living?
I'm a flying doctor...
Re:Medical Malpractice (Score:2)
-Matt
Re:Medical Malpractice (Score:1)
http://lyricsplayground.com/alpha/songs/m/myboo
Still works outside the US (Score:2)
Two Ways (Score:2)
1) As a life-saving medical technology --> lives will be saved by remote medical care, esp. when there isn't a doctor on a flight already.
2) As an excuse for airlines to keep sick people in the air. Sure, they might reduce costs and avoid inconvienence (for other passangers) in the process, but I could see a situationw where someone really needs to be off the plane, but isn't allowed because of a faulty or inappropriate diagnosis from 2,000 miles away - in the intrest of the airline, who is paying the doctor in the first place...
Can't wait (Score:1)
Of course, I want those checkup results to have the normal 5 years validity B)
So, for the next flight reservation i'll ask for "a window seat, veggie meals and the check-up to do a commercial pilot please..."
Words (Score:1)
UPLOAD the data using satellite.
DOWNLOAD is when you GET data.
UPLOAD is when you SEND data.
Almost as irritating as "begs the question" and misused at least as frequently.
Re:Words (Score:2)
Download is when data is sent from a server to a client.
Upload is when data is sent from a client to a server.
When programming things like EPROMs, etc., you may be operating the computer sitting next to the EPROM programmer, and you may be sending data from the computer to the programmer, but you are still downloading the data to the device.
This begs the question, however: did the original text use the term "download" because the plane would be up in the sky, and the data would be sent "down" to a hospital?...
Re:Words (Score:1)
Upload is when data is sent from a client to a server.
That's exactly what I said.
This begs the question, however: did the original text use the term "download" because the plane would be up in the sky, and the data would be sent "down" to a hospital?...
Nice troll.
What if.... (Score:1)
But, what about lag?
Or worse still.. Your patient get's the "Ping of death"..
Or worse still.. somebody posts a link to the medical case on Slashdot and your examination is not only viewed by thousands of people but the only useful information returned to the mobile terminal is "In russia.. You examine your mobile medical case!"
Reason of death: -2 Redundant
Re: (Score:1)
medically-trained flight crew (Score:1)
The right thing to do (Score:2)
this could lead to law suits.... (Score:1)
Which in turn mean more money for the lawyers. and who want that to happen (except the lawyers).....
hypesonic airliners (Score:2, Interesting)
Having flown over the pacific 11 times now, even I (extreme miser) would fess up an extra $200 for, say 5-6 hour flight rather than the 10-12 hours it takes now.
Back on topic, trans-oceanic flights do pose an interesting problem for this: Where exactly do you divert to if you are flying from SFO to Narita?
Psychiatrist in a Suitcase? (Score:1)
Carry on luggage? Could save a lot of panic-induced heart attacks.
Why? (Score:1)
"A crew member with proper training can now take basic heart, blood, temperature and sugar level readings."
As an EMT I do these things all the time. One doesn't need a machine to take a pulse and infact the machines are often wrong. I can see having blood pressure cuffs and a stethescope on board but again a machine will give you incorrect readings. For temperature, sure have a thermometer but how big/expensive is that really going to be? A glucometer is certainly a good idea but they are also tiny these days. What I really don't understand is why do they need a sattelite phone? Don't airliners have radios? Why not just have the nearest tower relay the info to an emergency room on the ground? EMTs have specific protocols for this kind of "on-line" medical direction.
Really all that is needed is a small box about 12"x6"x6" and a bit of training to do everything this "briefcase" can do and it would only uses tested, reliable technology.
Just let a sky marshal (Score:1)
One plane per day out of thousands of flights?? (Score:2)
I found the manual to the machine (Score:2, Funny)
Step 2: Place back of hand on forehead. Does it feel warm? If so, go to step 3.
Step 3: To take a more accurate temperature reading, the use of a rectal thermometer is recommended. Tell the passenger to "assume the position". If the passenger is flying coach, they may need to have this position explained to them. If the passenger is flying first class, they will understand right away since they bent over when they bought their tickets for this flight.
Step 4: Was temperature reading above 98.6 F? If so, send passenger back to their seat. If not, go to step 5.
Step 5: Evidence suggests that passenger is dead. Tell pilot to land plane immediately.
translated into Perl.... (Score:2)
$chance_of_living = rand();
if ($chance_of_living > 0.5) { print "Just heartburn!"; };
elsif ($chance_of_living > 0.2) { print "Just heartburn!"; };
else { print "Don't worry, just heartburn!"; }
}
Why bother to land? (Score:1)
Airlines are cheap... (Score:2)
I once had to keep company with a heroin addict for the final 6 hours of a 10 hour flight from Tokyo to Vancouver. The guy had gone nuts and done the whole air rage thing, almost taking out one of the flight attendants in the process.
Myself and a couple of Aussies managed to get him calmed down and I kept him under control by playing the understanding friend.
Because of this the plane was able to continue direct to Vancouer instead of diverting to Anchorage as the pilot was ready to do.
So what did JAL give me for saving them $50K-$100?
A mini-pocketwatch worth about $20 and a couple of bottles of wine.
Cheap bastards.
The funny thing about the whole situation was that the addict was caucasian and when he got out of control the flight attendants were running all over looking for white people to help. This on a 747 full of asians some of whome were a hell of a lot bigger than me. Go figure.
this is just a marketing brochure (Score:3, Informative)
Also, the numbers quoted of 'one diversion per day' and the '50-100 thousand dollars' just doesn't sound significant. I am not sure how many flights are made a day, but I believe the airline revenue is in excess of 300 million dollars a day, which makes a diverted flight at most 0.03% of revenue. And what is the liability to the airline for misdiagnosis. I can't imagine that airlines are going to risk a lawsuit to keep a plane in the air. Anyone remember the guy who recently died because the train would not stop to let him go to a hospital?
It might be nice to keep these devices on planes just in case. But is not like a defibrillator that might actually save a persons life.
Dodgy laywers (Score:1)
There must have been a lot of patent applications recently...
Ah.. evaLuation (Score:2)
There are more uses (Score:1)
This is a pretty potent invention if used right, and with some slight modifications it could be used to give directions on how to perform first-aid mid-flight... If the device contanined a two-way mechanism for talking with the doctor recieving the medical data, as opposed to calling them seperatly... youd have damn near a doctor on demand... plus.. if the device could make some basic analyzations itself (in case of no access to satelite / doctor)... it could suggest some life-saving first-aid response techniques to the victim or the one helping them.
truly a good device with great potential, i hope it doesnt fall to the wayside.
--Enter The Sig--
Oh, great... (Score:2)
Just give a physician a free ticket (Score:1)
Aside from the BBC's numbers being a little suspect, it seems that it would just be cheaper and more effective to put a real physician on every flight - either by giving a free ticket/incentives to doctors, or by giving flight crew members EMT training.
I have been on 6 flights where the "is there a doctor on board" call has come. On 4 of those flights, there was a physician present. And in each of those 4 cases, the plane did not need to be diverted, and the doctor was able to make a quick diagnosis of a minor ailment (like heartburn confused to be a heart attack). On the other two flights where no physician was present, the plane was diverted and landed at the closest airport. In all cases the medical condition was trivial, but the most important element that kept the plane aloft in the first four cases was having an 'expert' there to calm the patient and reassure the flight crew. I don't think a machine can replace that.
Addressing some points that have been made.... (Score:3, Informative)
I have specifed the comment ID so you can see more context if required.
# 4971908
Where they currently don't have much available beyond traditional CPR now, they will be able to dispense drugs that the physician "prescribes" after doing the remote examination.
FACT- Airliners now have `physicians medical kits` that contain prescription only drugs. It is sealed and only allowed to be used when under the supervision of an MD.
# 4972049
It might be nice to keep these devices on planes just in case. But is not like a defibrillator that might actually save a persons life.
FACT- Airliners now are acquiring auto-defibrillators that are user-friendly and that the cabin crew is trained to use. These units only will provide a shock if their sensors detect a correctable anomaly.
# 4971949
Don't airliners have radios? Why not just have the nearest tower relay the info to an emergency room on the ground? EMTs have specific protocols for this kind of "on-line" medical direction.
FACT- Yes, aircraft have radios. The frequencies are mightily congested, meaning that if one flight monopolizes the airwaves, other important communications get put on hold. When a plane is declaring a mechanical emergency, it makes sense to give way. But as noted, this type of event happens often , meaning that there would be too much communications disruption systemwide.
Also, asking the tower/approach/center to proxy the messages to a hospital adds the chance for miscommunication. Further, ATC would now be 'in the loop' and would have to have plans and protocols for what to do when the crew asks for help. (Some of this may be in place now, but not to the level that you suggest). A sat-link takes all this mess away and gets the real data into the hands of someone who can interpret it.
# 4972002
Step 5: Evidence suggests that passenger is dead. Tell pilot to land plane immediately
FACT- Uh, he's dead, Jim. Why in hell would you land now? As a flight chief, I say press on. Only land if other passengers are starting to freak out. Whimpy management might over-ride this call, but its the one I make.
# 4971986
This means if it coast $80,000 for one of these diversions and there's one a day, then for these 10,000 flights it cost 8 bucks a flight. This is hardly a major expense for the airlines; we're talking pocket change here.
FACT- I think this $80K figure is grossly low. (Then again, so is your total worldwide flight count.)
The downline effects of a single flight diversion can ruin an aircraft's schedule for an entire day, and the crew being out of place can affect other lines of flight. That totals possibly thousands of aggregate passengers who are now upset. Due to the cause of the diversion, the airline might choose to hold or reroute planes that were scheduled to carry the pax onboard the diverted flight, snowballing the damage to the schedule. Moreover, airlines are bleeding at the wallet currently. They can ill afford to alienate the remaining passengers who are continuing to fly.
Also, emergency diversions such as this are often into provisional or other non-standard airports. This can create huge logistic or engineering headaches when it comes time to leave (i.e., fuel availability, runway length, local firefighting staff, etc etc.)
Further, there may be unknown accounting benefits w.r.t these units. When a flight diverts the losses are just operational losses. These boxes likely can be acquired as a capital expense, thus subject to many accounting and financing advantages.
Finally, there are no `co-pilots` (a non-word perpetuated by the ignorant press). There are only pilots. Some are Captains, and some are First Officers, but they can all fly the aircraft without oversight or assistance.
Posted AC due to insider information.
Re:Addressing some points that have been made.... (Score:1)
My point is this: if a patient/pax goes down in-flight, and the device is used, the financial benefit of the briefcase is lost if it simply confirms that diversion is the most appropriate action.
It would be interesting to collect (retrospective) information to answser this question: what percentage of diversions could be avoided with the briefcase on board?
From your experience, what fraction of diversions are later found to be for trivial reasons?
Obviously, the device is of only limited use for the ABCs of resuscitation. Someone still has to maintain an airway, confirm ventilation and circulation. And someone still has to get IV access in order for a full-bore resuscitation to proceed, if that's required. (Some meds can be given through a tracheal tube, but intubation in flight is probably beyond what we're talking about here.)
Re:Addressing some points that have been made.... (Score:1)
Don't airliners have radios? Why not just have the nearest tower relay the info to an emergency room on the ground? EMTs have specific protocols for this kind of "on-line" medical direction.
>>FACT- Yes, aircraft have radios. The frequencies are mightily congested, meaning that if one flight monopolizes the airwaves, other important communications get put on hold. When a plane is declaring a mechanical emergency, it makes sense to give way. But as noted, this type of event happens often , meaning that there would be too much communications disruption systemwide.
>>Also, asking the tower/approach/center to proxy the messages to a hospital adds the chance for miscommunication. Further, ATC would now be 'in the loop' and would have to have plans and protocols for what to do when the crew asks for help. (Some of this may be in place now, but not to the level that you suggest). A sat-link takes all this mess away and gets the real data into the hands of someone who can interpret it.
If I remember correctly from not only my spotter training with Civil Air Search and Rescue, but from my Amateur Radio training as well, the moment somebody broadcasts a Mayday or otherwise declares an emergency, all other traffic is supposed to shut the fuck up so that the emergency is given priority. When this happens, ATC directs other people on that frequency to some other frequency, on the chance that the emergency traffic cannot make such a change. The laws and regulations concerning radios apply to everybody, and airliners aren't treated any differently than the guy in the C152 doing his run-up on the ramp.
Did you notice that the person making that original post identified himself as a paramedic? In other words, he's somebody who has to deal with emergency situations via a radio link every day, so probably has a better handle on that sort of thing than the guy who cancels flights, or his flight attendant wife in the back of the plane.
Re:Addressing some points that have been made.... (Score:1)
>>REPLY- I never said anything about the ability of EMT's do do their job properly or to perform well with limited information over the radio. I only said it's nice if you can/could keep ATC out of the loop. Now if a crew could get patched directly to a specialist EMT and in turn get those instructions out to the cabin in a timely fashion, I'm all for it.
Did you even read his full reply? Here's an important bit...
>>As an EMT I do these things all the time. One doesn't need a machine to take a pulse and infact the machines are often wrong. I can see having blood pressure cuffs and a stethescope on board but again a machine will give you incorrect readings. For temperature, sure have a thermometer but how big/expensive is that really going to be? A glucometer is certainly a good idea but they are also tiny these days. What I really don't understand is why do they need a sattelite phone? Don't airliners have radios? Why not just have the nearest tower relay the info to an emergency room on the ground? EMTs have specific protocols for this kind of "on-line" medical direction.
In other words, even in the skilled hands of somebody who uses electronic diagnostic equipment every day, they can and do produce readings that are shit! Most if not all of the readings that can be taken by these things can be done by anybody with decent first aid training, (and I would hope that cabin crew do), and it can take just as long for an ambulance to get to a location on the ground as it can for an aircraft to land at an airport with that ambulance waiting for it. So these things, IMHO aren't worth a damn.
As for ATC being "out of the loop", is this airlinese for keeping everybody else out of the loop as well? As far as I'm concerned, that's exactly one of the reasons ATC is there, to handle emergency traffic! These people are skilled communicators, so messages would get properly passed on. Besides, can you be sure that whatever comm link for the fancy assed diag equipment would have data to find some backwoods airstrip with which to land your A310? Dollars to donuts ATC could provide local info, as well as relay any other pertinent info.
If one of your pilots does make the call to land because somebody has a fainting spell misinterpreted as a heart attack, is the airline going to hang him out to dry? Won't that look good on the stock exchange floor!
As for your last comment, I choose to ignore it. Now go and cancel some more flights!
Re: (Score:1)
Give them guns too (Score:2)
I think I'll drive.
Re:Give them guns too (Score:1)
Three letters (Score:2)
Great.. (Score:1)
Last Post! (Score:1)
vorteilhaft ihr unterschütterliches Vertrauen in die moderene
Technologie
-- Agent Gully in "Die eXakten"
- this post brought to you by the Automated Last Post Generator...