Actually,
brockenspectre, you've raised a very pertinent point although, sadly, a small response so far. Just to recap, the CAP413 (UK RT document) states:
"
Urgency A condition concerning the safety of an aircraft or other vehicle,
or of some person on board or within sight, but does not require immediate assistance." (
My emphasis).
So current practice, as stated by
TwinNDB and
HD, is quite correct of course. However, I am fascinated by
Michael111's contribution on maritime procedure.
I think it would be reasonable to suggest that the technical reliability of modern aircraft has improved rather more rapidly, in recent years, than that of its typical occupants - especially those with a high mileage! Additionally, the law of averages almost demands a probability on larger aircraft that someone will "have a turn". Although I have no idea of the statistics, I wouldn't mind betting that medical diversions or incidents outnumber the tech ones these days - or darned close.
Anyone who has done this job for a while, especially on longer trips, who has not had a medical problem on board would surely be considered to have had a charmed life. ATC mates have been nagging us for years to overcome the almost ingrained reluctance of pilots to use
MAYDAY pr PAN in a timely fashion. The aero-psychos tell us it's something to do with public admission of defeat, not in full control of the situation, etc. All no doubt true.
It strikes me that the inclusion of
PAN MEDICO in the aeronautical vocabulary would be a really useful improvement. One that pilots would be less averse to using, as in, "
Hey, we're OK but it's this guy down the back, you see!"
More practically, it could cut down on unnecessary chat and get the medics on the move at (chosen) destination. Lets face it, they don't have a different set of specialists ready to deal with each condition that crops up on board. Anyone else feel like adding an opinion on this?