Nurse fury at Ryanair as woman dies on flight from Italy
Join Date: Dec 2000
Location: UK
Posts: 361
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Many people on suffering a heart attack vomit - and the very action of chest compressions itself increases even more.
With the dry air in the cabin, the crews lips could have small cracks in allowing any infection to cross-over...
Who is to say whether anyone you are working on, is not suffering from pneumonia,meningitis,herpes,hiv,tuberculosis etc or a hepatitis carrier - most of these can be deadly....
There is no question that proper protection MUST be provided and that MUST be used and properly trained in the use thereof...
Guest
Posts: n/a
Alibaba
I don't knoe if you misunderstood my post, but what I am saying is....
1 - airlines rely on travelling health professionals to assist
2 - these people should be provided with the equipment required, to do their job
No more and no less.
I am not disputing that the kit is carried, but the nurse said she was not provided with it.
That is my point.
Please re-read my original post and you will see this is what I said.
I don't knoe if you misunderstood my post, but what I am saying is....
1 - airlines rely on travelling health professionals to assist
2 - these people should be provided with the equipment required, to do their job
No more and no less.
I am not disputing that the kit is carried, but the nurse said she was not provided with it.
That is my point.
Please re-read my original post and you will see this is what I said.
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: Everywhere
Posts: 126
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Thanks for the advice 3 greens, I have done what you said. 
The equipment was and is aboard the a/c. The reason why it wasn't used is unknown...... Unless you have the answer?
It could be a multiple of reasons why it wasn't used. Don't forget the Nurse's and Dr's involved with this situation would have had high adrenaline levels just as much as anyone else. A report will show the outcome of events and procedures followed. It is not always individuals that are at fault but could be procedures or other causal effects with human factors. It seems too many people on this website like to point a finger of blame at a person or company without evidence or just cause.
The procedures could have been wrong or Cabin Crew Fatigue could be an issue. 6 early 12 hr days in succession could be a reason? Who knows? Only a detailed report from the IAA, RYR, Coroner and or the Irish equivalent of the AAIB would show the factors involved and how the emergency was handled.
I don't particularly think it is the airlines that are relying on the help of a medical professional but the person who might be in this terrible situation.... It would be stupid and unprofessional not to ask for help from a medical professional in this situation and would also make the news if not asked and a DR was onboard who could have given assistance. After all it is the person's life that is at stake here. Not to ask for help from someone involved in this profession would be criminal in my mind in an event such as this.
The point I was trying to make about the equipment is referring to a barrier and latex gloves which are aboard the a/c. If the nurse or someone on the thread was referring to equipment that should clear the airway? Well that is not aboard and that is something people should take up with the relevant regulatory authorities. Not RYR. But as someone previously stated a Cabin Crew member sticking a plastic tube down someone’s neck is not something I would advice. Either in a legal context or that of safety issue.
The equipment was and is aboard the a/c. The reason why it wasn't used is unknown...... Unless you have the answer?
It could be a multiple of reasons why it wasn't used. Don't forget the Nurse's and Dr's involved with this situation would have had high adrenaline levels just as much as anyone else. A report will show the outcome of events and procedures followed. It is not always individuals that are at fault but could be procedures or other causal effects with human factors. It seems too many people on this website like to point a finger of blame at a person or company without evidence or just cause.
The procedures could have been wrong or Cabin Crew Fatigue could be an issue. 6 early 12 hr days in succession could be a reason? Who knows? Only a detailed report from the IAA, RYR, Coroner and or the Irish equivalent of the AAIB would show the factors involved and how the emergency was handled.
I don't particularly think it is the airlines that are relying on the help of a medical professional but the person who might be in this terrible situation.... It would be stupid and unprofessional not to ask for help from a medical professional in this situation and would also make the news if not asked and a DR was onboard who could have given assistance. After all it is the person's life that is at stake here. Not to ask for help from someone involved in this profession would be criminal in my mind in an event such as this.
The point I was trying to make about the equipment is referring to a barrier and latex gloves which are aboard the a/c. If the nurse or someone on the thread was referring to equipment that should clear the airway? Well that is not aboard and that is something people should take up with the relevant regulatory authorities. Not RYR. But as someone previously stated a Cabin Crew member sticking a plastic tube down someone’s neck is not something I would advice. Either in a legal context or that of safety issue.
Join Date: May 2003
Location: france
Posts: 194
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
hello final 3gr.
if & i mean if the nurse was given the first aid kit, would she not find what she's looking for in this kit? she is after all supposed to have more experience with this medical stuff & so on. as said before, until the investigation in this tragic accident is made public, i think it's premature to jump to conclusions & all the ryr bashing is pure nonsense.
if & i mean if the nurse was given the first aid kit, would she not find what she's looking for in this kit? she is after all supposed to have more experience with this medical stuff & so on. as said before, until the investigation in this tragic accident is made public, i think it's premature to jump to conclusions & all the ryr bashing is pure nonsense.
Guest
Posts: n/a
Alibaba & Blackmail
Please note that I am not bashing Ryanair, my point is made generally. The fact that the airline in question is Ryanair is irrelevant as far as I am concerned and your sensitivity to inferred criticism is your problem, not mine.
Allibaba, you said "I don't particularly think it is the airlines that are relying on the help of a medical professional", but if you look in the first post it says quite clearly that the aircraft commander appealed for assistance - absolutely the right thing to do, I think that we agree on that.
I have no idea why the kit was not given to the nurse and am not trying to judge the reasons why, nor do I dispute that the aircraft carried the supplies required.
Once again, my point is that if health professionals are asked to assist, they should be provided with the gloves and masks.
After all, they might be putting their own life on the line by not using this basic equipment.
Please note that I am not bashing Ryanair, my point is made generally. The fact that the airline in question is Ryanair is irrelevant as far as I am concerned and your sensitivity to inferred criticism is your problem, not mine.
Allibaba, you said "I don't particularly think it is the airlines that are relying on the help of a medical professional", but if you look in the first post it says quite clearly that the aircraft commander appealed for assistance - absolutely the right thing to do, I think that we agree on that.
I have no idea why the kit was not given to the nurse and am not trying to judge the reasons why, nor do I dispute that the aircraft carried the supplies required.
Once again, my point is that if health professionals are asked to assist, they should be provided with the gloves and masks.
After all, they might be putting their own life on the line by not using this basic equipment.
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: Everywhere
Posts: 126
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
So your point is general 3 greens. The answer to your point is that the equipment is onboard.
As far as I am aware unless someone can tell me that I am wrong? It is a JAA and or an IAA requirement to have these parts of equipment onboard. So most airlines if not all airlines flying a/c of this size should have the equipment. That is what RYR have and so have met the regulatory obligations.
Steam Chicken; the commonwealth is no longer the powerhouse in the world it used to be sadly. Get over it.
As far as I am aware unless someone can tell me that I am wrong? It is a JAA and or an IAA requirement to have these parts of equipment onboard. So most airlines if not all airlines flying a/c of this size should have the equipment. That is what RYR have and so have met the regulatory obligations.
Steam Chicken; the commonwealth is no longer the powerhouse in the world it used to be sadly. Get over it.
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: SLF, living somewhere East in the West
Posts: 235
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
standards can be different
Unlike ocean going passenger liners, aircraft are not obliged to carry a doctor or any other medical staff. They are obliged to carry minimum medical equipment as specified by the aviation authority (the IAA for Ryanair) that oversees their operation. Ryanair no doubt meet this obligation as do every other airline under the IAA jurisdiction.
A few years ago I witnessed a woman suffer a near fatal illness on a flight from Dublin to Chicago on an Aer Lingus A330. The cabin crew adopted the headless chicken routine while the lady beside me (who was a nurse) rushed to assist. Not much she could do except keep the old dear who was down breathing and comfortable. The captain diverted to Quebec to get emergency medical attention.
Later on when the nurse returned to her seat, she complained to me that the medical equipment on board was totally inadequate and the cabin crew were completely useless.
I really don't see a stick to beat Ryanair with this recent story. The blame, if there is any, lies elsewhere.
A few years ago I witnessed a woman suffer a near fatal illness on a flight from Dublin to Chicago on an Aer Lingus A330. The cabin crew adopted the headless chicken routine while the lady beside me (who was a nurse) rushed to assist. Not much she could do except keep the old dear who was down breathing and comfortable. The captain diverted to Quebec to get emergency medical attention.
Later on when the nurse returned to her seat, she complained to me that the medical equipment on board was totally inadequate and the cabin crew were completely useless.
I really don't see a stick to beat Ryanair with this recent story. The blame, if there is any, lies elsewhere.
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: SLF, living somewhere East in the West
Posts: 235
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
well spoken
Alibaba & Blackmail
Please note that I am not bashing Ryanair, my point is made generally. The fact that the airline in question is Ryanair is irrelevant as far as I am concerned and your sensitivity to inferred criticism is your problem, not mine.
Allibaba, you said "I don't particularly think it is the airlines that are relying on the help of a medical professional", but if you look in the first post it says quite clearly that the aircraft commander appealed for assistance - absolutely the right thing to do, I think that we agree on that.
I have no idea why the kit was not given to the nurse and am not trying to judge the reasons why, nor do I dispute that the aircraft carried the supplies required.
Once again, my point is that if health professionals are asked to assist, they should be provided with the gloves and masks.
After all, they might be putting their own life on the line by not using this basic equipment.
Please note that I am not bashing Ryanair, my point is made generally. The fact that the airline in question is Ryanair is irrelevant as far as I am concerned and your sensitivity to inferred criticism is your problem, not mine.
Allibaba, you said "I don't particularly think it is the airlines that are relying on the help of a medical professional", but if you look in the first post it says quite clearly that the aircraft commander appealed for assistance - absolutely the right thing to do, I think that we agree on that.
I have no idea why the kit was not given to the nurse and am not trying to judge the reasons why, nor do I dispute that the aircraft carried the supplies required.
Once again, my point is that if health professionals are asked to assist, they should be provided with the gloves and masks.
After all, they might be putting their own life on the line by not using this basic equipment.
Certainly, if you are out in the woods and someone needs CPR you have to make your decision and usually do it. But on board of a plane that obviously has to be equipped by law with some minimal equipment (gloves, mask) you should not have to make that decision in the first place!
To be fair to Mo'L, he did at least say on the RTé interview that they would be having an internal inquiry to establish why the CC couldn't find the kit which should have been on board - if indeed that was what happened as has been stated by the nurses.
Who did the first pre-flight? Presumably that included a check of the emergency equipment inventory?
Mind you Mo'L could have saved a lot of hassle by saying: "We're all very sad indeed about this poor woman passing away. We also thank the nurses and doctors who came to help for doing the best they could for her and we will also be using their expert knowledge to establish what more we could do were this sad tragedy ever to happen again"
And if pressed about where/what had happened to the first aid equipment: "We will be carrying out an internal inquiry and addressing all the comments made by the passengers who tried so hard to save this poor woman. If we find that there were any shortcomings on our part on this occasion, we will ensure that they are rectified immediately".
Who did the first pre-flight? Presumably that included a check of the emergency equipment inventory?
Mind you Mo'L could have saved a lot of hassle by saying: "We're all very sad indeed about this poor woman passing away. We also thank the nurses and doctors who came to help for doing the best they could for her and we will also be using their expert knowledge to establish what more we could do were this sad tragedy ever to happen again"
And if pressed about where/what had happened to the first aid equipment: "We will be carrying out an internal inquiry and addressing all the comments made by the passengers who tried so hard to save this poor woman. If we find that there were any shortcomings on our part on this occasion, we will ensure that they are rectified immediately".
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: london
Posts: 331
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
So, due to the pressure(?) of the situation, the Ryanair cabin crew were unable to help by getting the first aid kit. God help us all if any of their fleet are involved in a real emergency. These cc are meant to help in aircraft evacuation for heaven's sake!!
As a pax, I regard the ability of cc to provide a first aid kit, as a relatively simple task. That is, of course, assuming they have one.
As a pax, I regard the ability of cc to provide a first aid kit, as a relatively simple task. That is, of course, assuming they have one.
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: Everywhere
Posts: 126
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
3 green; I can honestly say that I don't understand your point? What are you trying to say? Is "grimmrad" or "10second survey" doing the talking for you here, because you don't want to come out and say exactly what you want to say in fear of being accused of being just another RYR basher? If you want to say it, then say it! At least have a pair of b
s.
The equipment was available. Why it wasn't used will come out in an investigation. Did the nurse ask for it after or before giving CPR? Did the crew think as CPR was already being given the nurse's didn't need the barrier? In a hospital ER, maybe a barrier would be provided automatically by act of procedure and CPR continued? Can you say the crew knew this? Who knows? Most people on here certainly do not know what happened as they were not there. That is for sure.
It is interesting to see you have read the final report into the investigation grimmrad.
The crew should have supplied the equipment etc. Again, how do you know whether they did or not? If someone screwed up here without any human factor problems just by shear incompetence, something will have to be done no doubt.
10secondsurvey; RYR as far as I am aware carried nearly 35 million people last year. Do you not think different crews from RYR's many bases around Europe would have not dealt with emergencies?
Look further down the Rumours and News and you will see another RYR emergency that was dealt with professionally and without incident. I would say RYR have emergencies the same as any other operator and deal with them on the whole professionally and without incident. It doesn't make the news because it was handled in an expeditious and professional manor most probably.
Now getting to the fact that RYR have multi national crews. Can I ask is there a problem with this? Is the crew less able to deal with an emergency? I think there is a bit of bigotry concerned with this subject. If people have a problem with multi nationals then they should think long and hard and decide if the problem is with them or ourselves and our own possible racist sentiments?
The equipment should have been provided 3 green I have no difference in opinion to you on that point. I agree. All I am trying to say is pre-empting an investigation as to why the nurse didn't or couldn't use the barrier is wrong. There is alot of the mud slinging at Ryanair without knowning the facts which will come after the investigation and reports are written. Not by us now, guessing on a web forum.
s. The equipment was available. Why it wasn't used will come out in an investigation. Did the nurse ask for it after or before giving CPR? Did the crew think as CPR was already being given the nurse's didn't need the barrier? In a hospital ER, maybe a barrier would be provided automatically by act of procedure and CPR continued? Can you say the crew knew this? Who knows? Most people on here certainly do not know what happened as they were not there. That is for sure.
It is interesting to see you have read the final report into the investigation grimmrad.
The crew should have supplied the equipment etc. Again, how do you know whether they did or not? If someone screwed up here without any human factor problems just by shear incompetence, something will have to be done no doubt.10secondsurvey; RYR as far as I am aware carried nearly 35 million people last year. Do you not think different crews from RYR's many bases around Europe would have not dealt with emergencies?
Look further down the Rumours and News and you will see another RYR emergency that was dealt with professionally and without incident. I would say RYR have emergencies the same as any other operator and deal with them on the whole professionally and without incident. It doesn't make the news because it was handled in an expeditious and professional manor most probably.
Now getting to the fact that RYR have multi national crews. Can I ask is there a problem with this? Is the crew less able to deal with an emergency? I think there is a bit of bigotry concerned with this subject. If people have a problem with multi nationals then they should think long and hard and decide if the problem is with them or ourselves and our own possible racist sentiments?
The equipment should have been provided 3 green I have no difference in opinion to you on that point. I agree. All I am trying to say is pre-empting an investigation as to why the nurse didn't or couldn't use the barrier is wrong. There is alot of the mud slinging at Ryanair without knowning the facts which will come after the investigation and reports are written. Not by us now, guessing on a web forum.
Last edited by alibaba; 27th Sep 2006 at 18:52.
Join Date: May 2003
Location: france
Posts: 194
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
first aid
10sec's
there are "normally" 3 first aid kits on board. one in bin 14def & 2 in last rh bin(row 33def). contents are published in the first aid manual.
again, "normally" the presence/conformity of these items & other things, O2 & fire extinguishers etc. are checked when the cabincrews perform their cabin safety/security check after boarding the aircraft for their first flight of the day.
as the hot topic here centers aroud the first aid kits, the cc can only check the precence & the seal of the box & hope the contents are ok.
the n°1 then informs the captain,who then signs the plog that the inspection is carried out correctly.
there are "normally" 3 first aid kits on board. one in bin 14def & 2 in last rh bin(row 33def). contents are published in the first aid manual.
again, "normally" the presence/conformity of these items & other things, O2 & fire extinguishers etc. are checked when the cabincrews perform their cabin safety/security check after boarding the aircraft for their first flight of the day.
as the hot topic here centers aroud the first aid kits, the cc can only check the precence & the seal of the box & hope the contents are ok.
the n°1 then informs the captain,who then signs the plog that the inspection is carried out correctly.
Guest
Posts: n/a
Alibaba
What part of "medical professionals should be provided with masks and gloves" are you having difficulty understanding?
And at the risk of being boring, I really couldn't care less that the airline involved was Ryanair, my point is that if airlines (in general) wish medical professional to assist with mouth to mouth ressucitation, they should give them the masks and gloves.
Got it?
What part of "medical professionals should be provided with masks and gloves" are you having difficulty understanding?
And at the risk of being boring, I really couldn't care less that the airline involved was Ryanair, my point is that if airlines (in general) wish medical professional to assist with mouth to mouth ressucitation, they should give them the masks and gloves.
Got it?
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: Everywhere
Posts: 126
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Couldn't agree more. 3 greens. 
The airlines do supply the equipment and I think they would want it used. I am not sure if you are medical professional or not but I would say it is the person on the floor with the problem that wants the equipment to be used just as much as you.
That person can catch something from you just as much as you obtaining something from them don't forget.
The airlines do supply the equipment and I think they would want it used. I am not sure if you are medical professional or not but I would say it is the person on the floor with the problem that wants the equipment to be used just as much as you.
That person can catch something from you just as much as you obtaining something from them don't forget.
Last edited by alibaba; 27th Sep 2006 at 19:12.
Just caught up on this rapidly expanding thread. Don't you guys ever sleep?? Just to clarify the new UK Resuscitation guidelines (taught on all new FA courses) still require lung inflations (ratio of 2 inflations to 30 chest compressions). However, it was recognised in drawing up the new guidelines that chest compressions were comparitively more important - compressing the chest to squirt the blood round the body also squashes the lungs to a certain extent and they partially reinflate between compressions, although of course this isn't as effective as proper rescue breathing. It was also noted that people who were reluctant to do mouth to mouth for whatever reason then tended to do nothing at all. Now more emphasis is put on "even if you don't do the inflations, do the compressions". Incidentally, likelihood of bringing back a heart attack casualty with CPR alone is approximately zero. Paramedic help is required, despite the rubbish suggesting otherwise frequently shown on TV. And on that cheerful note......
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: Retired to Bisley from the small African nation
Age: 67
Posts: 461
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Hi All
I'm a SAR helicopter pilot.
A few weeks ago we had three survivors in the water. The rearcrew brought the first one up unconcious. They then had to go for the other two. Some one has to fly the beast. That left me the copilot to do CPR.
A SAR aircraft is full of medical kit. I have several thousand hours in the business. I know, in theory, every bit of kit on board.
I went down the back, pulled the guy out of the way of the winching station, checked for vital signs, and got stuck into raw unprotected CPR. I did hesitate at the thought, but I wasn't thinking straight enough to grab any of the various barrier devices around the aircraft.
I'm a professional, experienced, and arrogant enough to think I'm quite good. Faced with the problem I didn't think of any of the solutions, so I just did what the military teach you every year.
Don't blame the cc - you can't simulate the real thing.
Sven
I'm a SAR helicopter pilot.
A few weeks ago we had three survivors in the water. The rearcrew brought the first one up unconcious. They then had to go for the other two. Some one has to fly the beast. That left me the copilot to do CPR.
A SAR aircraft is full of medical kit. I have several thousand hours in the business. I know, in theory, every bit of kit on board.
I went down the back, pulled the guy out of the way of the winching station, checked for vital signs, and got stuck into raw unprotected CPR. I did hesitate at the thought, but I wasn't thinking straight enough to grab any of the various barrier devices around the aircraft.
I'm a professional, experienced, and arrogant enough to think I'm quite good. Faced with the problem I didn't think of any of the solutions, so I just did what the military teach you every year.
Don't blame the cc - you can't simulate the real thing.
Sven
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: Germany
Posts: 5
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
This incident got me thinking and I'd like to add some of my own experiences.
Before I start, let me say that what happened on the Ryanair flight (obviously) can't be changed and seemingly only a full hospital ER would have been sufficiently equipped. The investigation/report will hopefully state on what really happened in terms of the gloves/barrier and what can be learnt from this. My condolences to the families involved.
(1) CX B747 ultra long haul flight in the late 80's /early 90's
Male cabin crew member became ill just into the flight. Doctor on board and together with/via link to company medical officer came to a prelim diagnosis of kidney stones. Extensive medical kit on board allowed appropriate pain killers and other appropriate medications to be administered. After allowing the drugs to kick in and after numerous calls plus patient input/feedback the it was decided to push on provided no change in condition. Regular updates followed and the flight landed at destination. QUESTION: Did the above-minimum-requirements medical kit enable a diversion (including substantial fuel dump) to be avoided? Needless to say, diversion or not, minutes or hours, the patient for sure will have appreciated the pain relief received.
(2) CX B747 ultra long haul flight in the late 80's
On last leg of the flight the aircraft diverted to a non CX airport on commanders decision due to medical emergency. As became known later, the crew performed some 30+ minutes of CPR including right through the landing. If I recall correctly the doctor/nurse aboard had at some point stated the fact that chances were increasingly slim. The crew continued nevertheless until handover to the airport medics. The passenger survived and made a full recovery from what was a heart attack. NO QUESTION: As published in the company newsletter, the crew did an excellent job and were credited with saving the passengers life. This incident still gives me goosebumps today (in a positive way). Not sure if any public press printed the positive story but I am sure that the 300+ other pax plus the patient will remember that CX flight and what they have seen forever and, overall, having been able to apply the training with such a result must have been a tremendous boost for the crew. Well done!
(3) CX B747 ultra long haul flight in the mid 90's
On the last leg of the flight a passenger became ill and medical assistance sought. Doctor plus nurse came forward. On arrival at the patients seat the crew volunteered the emergency kit and, as there was a doctor, stated to him that there was medical kit on board if needed. Again prelim diagnosis of kidney stones and after consultation with the company medical offiicer the patient received Paracetamol first with a stronger pain killer (Temgesic if I recall correctly) on standby to be administered by the doctor on board without further consultation with the company medical officer should the Paracetamol not provide sufficient relief. NO QUESTION: I was on board this flight and saw the both kits in action plus what I would deem to have been exemplary crew handling. The patient received relief from the pain and the flight continued to destination.
So to close:
- there is the emergency kit required by law
- there is the medical kit with a somewhat extensive stock such as BA, CX and many other carriers have on board
- there are the defib units
- there is crew training
As crew, a passenger, a patient or as pax with medical qualifications attending to another sick pax ... one can only hope that the aircraft one is travelling on carries as many as possible of the above.
For me personally I can come up with little excuse for any aircraft (regardless of airline, "flag carrier", charter or LCC) NOT to carry an extended medical kit. Apart from life being precious and myself possibly one day being in dire need aboard an aircraft ... if AVOIDING bad PR is not a reason enough ... a fuel dump, diversion, possible crew time problems and whatever else should be an easy equasion for any airline accountant - let alone for management with an ops background.
Defib units I could see a LCC declining on cost(/weight?) grounds ... but then it finally comes down to the question of what a passengers life if worth and what kind of airline you want to operate. We are talking equipment, not pretzels or caviar.
Training ... isn't that as much about meeting the minimum requirements as well as empowerment of your staff (be it up in the pointy end, further in the back or on the ground, be it for daily chores or emergency situations when the occur)? I think no staff is happy to be faced with running out of options/training/SOP's and being left with only "headless chicken" mode (again, regardless of where and for that matter even what industry). I think knowing what is on board plus volunteering the emergency kit plus making it known that there is (hopefully) a "bigger" kit available to qualified doctors is the minimum and at the same time somewhat acceptable, because ...
An airborne emergency aboard an aircraft is quite likely one of the top 10 worst places for such a thing to occurr - an that especially in a single isle plane versus the relative spacious luxury of a wide bodied jet.
Those are my 2 cents ... won't change anything but perhaps provide food for thought and again highlight the problem of "what factors rule our industry today". Perhaps our choice of airlines (when having a choice) based on the likelyhood of "the full works" being on board is the only option available.
Humans get sick (both crew and pax) and it happenes on aircraft (big and small, short haul and long haul, flag carrier and LCC) and it happenes at unpredictable times (V1, TOC, TOD or whenever) so this concernes every single one of us, flying on duty and travelling off duty.
Before I start, let me say that what happened on the Ryanair flight (obviously) can't be changed and seemingly only a full hospital ER would have been sufficiently equipped. The investigation/report will hopefully state on what really happened in terms of the gloves/barrier and what can be learnt from this. My condolences to the families involved.
(1) CX B747 ultra long haul flight in the late 80's /early 90's
Male cabin crew member became ill just into the flight. Doctor on board and together with/via link to company medical officer came to a prelim diagnosis of kidney stones. Extensive medical kit on board allowed appropriate pain killers and other appropriate medications to be administered. After allowing the drugs to kick in and after numerous calls plus patient input/feedback the it was decided to push on provided no change in condition. Regular updates followed and the flight landed at destination. QUESTION: Did the above-minimum-requirements medical kit enable a diversion (including substantial fuel dump) to be avoided? Needless to say, diversion or not, minutes or hours, the patient for sure will have appreciated the pain relief received.
(2) CX B747 ultra long haul flight in the late 80's
On last leg of the flight the aircraft diverted to a non CX airport on commanders decision due to medical emergency. As became known later, the crew performed some 30+ minutes of CPR including right through the landing. If I recall correctly the doctor/nurse aboard had at some point stated the fact that chances were increasingly slim. The crew continued nevertheless until handover to the airport medics. The passenger survived and made a full recovery from what was a heart attack. NO QUESTION: As published in the company newsletter, the crew did an excellent job and were credited with saving the passengers life. This incident still gives me goosebumps today (in a positive way). Not sure if any public press printed the positive story but I am sure that the 300+ other pax plus the patient will remember that CX flight and what they have seen forever and, overall, having been able to apply the training with such a result must have been a tremendous boost for the crew. Well done!
(3) CX B747 ultra long haul flight in the mid 90's
On the last leg of the flight a passenger became ill and medical assistance sought. Doctor plus nurse came forward. On arrival at the patients seat the crew volunteered the emergency kit and, as there was a doctor, stated to him that there was medical kit on board if needed. Again prelim diagnosis of kidney stones and after consultation with the company medical offiicer the patient received Paracetamol first with a stronger pain killer (Temgesic if I recall correctly) on standby to be administered by the doctor on board without further consultation with the company medical officer should the Paracetamol not provide sufficient relief. NO QUESTION: I was on board this flight and saw the both kits in action plus what I would deem to have been exemplary crew handling. The patient received relief from the pain and the flight continued to destination.
So to close:
- there is the emergency kit required by law
- there is the medical kit with a somewhat extensive stock such as BA, CX and many other carriers have on board
- there are the defib units
- there is crew training
As crew, a passenger, a patient or as pax with medical qualifications attending to another sick pax ... one can only hope that the aircraft one is travelling on carries as many as possible of the above.
For me personally I can come up with little excuse for any aircraft (regardless of airline, "flag carrier", charter or LCC) NOT to carry an extended medical kit. Apart from life being precious and myself possibly one day being in dire need aboard an aircraft ... if AVOIDING bad PR is not a reason enough ... a fuel dump, diversion, possible crew time problems and whatever else should be an easy equasion for any airline accountant - let alone for management with an ops background.
Defib units I could see a LCC declining on cost(/weight?) grounds ... but then it finally comes down to the question of what a passengers life if worth and what kind of airline you want to operate. We are talking equipment, not pretzels or caviar.
Training ... isn't that as much about meeting the minimum requirements as well as empowerment of your staff (be it up in the pointy end, further in the back or on the ground, be it for daily chores or emergency situations when the occur)? I think no staff is happy to be faced with running out of options/training/SOP's and being left with only "headless chicken" mode (again, regardless of where and for that matter even what industry). I think knowing what is on board plus volunteering the emergency kit plus making it known that there is (hopefully) a "bigger" kit available to qualified doctors is the minimum and at the same time somewhat acceptable, because ...
An airborne emergency aboard an aircraft is quite likely one of the top 10 worst places for such a thing to occurr - an that especially in a single isle plane versus the relative spacious luxury of a wide bodied jet.
Those are my 2 cents ... won't change anything but perhaps provide food for thought and again highlight the problem of "what factors rule our industry today". Perhaps our choice of airlines (when having a choice) based on the likelyhood of "the full works" being on board is the only option available.
Humans get sick (both crew and pax) and it happenes on aircraft (big and small, short haul and long haul, flag carrier and LCC) and it happenes at unpredictable times (V1, TOC, TOD or whenever) so this concernes every single one of us, flying on duty and travelling off duty.
Join Date: Jun 2000
Posts: 378
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
EIDAH suggests...
You can say what you like about Ryanir but I am sure they would never break the IAA's rules its not in there interest they would lose there operating license.
An incapacitated 80 year old and a 10 year old child sitting in an Emergency Exit Row.??
What IAA rule allows that.
As for non-aviation background, you are quite right EIDAH, I'm retired now after 35 years at the front end of BA wide-bodied and loving it.
Perhaps that's why, EIDAH, having seen how the job should be done, I am less than impressed with the standard of Ryanair Cabin Crew
You can say what you like about Ryanir but I am sure they would never break the IAA's rules its not in there interest they would lose there operating license.
An incapacitated 80 year old and a 10 year old child sitting in an Emergency Exit Row.??
What IAA rule allows that.
As for non-aviation background, you are quite right EIDAH, I'm retired now after 35 years at the front end of BA wide-bodied and loving it.
Perhaps that's why, EIDAH, having seen how the job should be done, I am less than impressed with the standard of Ryanair Cabin Crew