|
There is a "utility kit" kit onboard RYR a/c. If MOL didn't talk about it then so be it. As we all know he gets alot of things wrong. |
A quick question that obviously has not come up: Why did the aircraft divert to CRL ? Was CRL as a Ryanair base by coincidence indeed the nearest airport to divert to ?
|
http://www.breakingnews.ie/2006/10/18/story281447.html
Transport officials facing questions about in-flight first aid 18/10/2006 - 08:32:10 The Oireachtas Transport Committee is due to begin an investigation today into the provision of first-aid equipment on flights and the training of cabin crews to deal with medical emergencies. Officials from the Department of Transport and the Irish Aviation Authority are due before the committee to answer questions on the matter. The investigation follows the death of a 24-year-old woman on a Ryanair flight from Treviso to Dublin last month. Concern was raised at the time about the lack of medical equipment on board, but Ryanair insisted all its aircraft were stocked with first-aid kits as required by EU law and all staff were trained in CPR. |
As topdog1 says, a defibrillator can be used for for an electrocardiogram, to help establish a diagnosis and decide further action, which is very important in my opinion. Even if defibrillation is not required in one case, the ECG can be used by a doctor on board if there is one, or by the medical service on the ground that will be in communication with the cockpit.
In my airline (we carry them in Short, Medium and Long Haul) the procedure in case a passenger collapses is that someone takes care of him/her while another crew fetches the defib and ambu and systematically proceeds to connect it to the pax (electrodes). You can never know if you're going to need it, even if the pax only had a syncope and recovers immediately, and seconds are vital in these cases. Thanks to this procedure, since we started carrying defibrillators (4 years) on all aircraft (251), we've had a % of full recoveries of 20%. Which is enormous, given that on the ground the % is of 3% (I'm still talking of full recoveries: additional 7% survive on the ground but with serious handicaps or brain damage while 10% become organ donors). The reasons for this difference is that the average time of action in case of cardiac arrest in the air is 3 minutes, while in the best of cases in the ground it is 15' to 20' (unless you are "lucky" enough to have a cardiac arrest at the hospital :rolleyes: ). It is true that in this particular case gloves, mask and defib would not have changed the outcome, but the defib surely would have helped enourmously the doctor, nurse and crew involved to have a clue about what was happening. The fact that it is not a requirement on aircraft is a shame and having seen the numbers for my airline, I must say it is a deadly shame. |
Absolutely Flyblue!
Defibs are relatively inexpensive and drastically increase chances of survival in cardiac arrest casualties, particularly if they are used almost immediately. I am surprised more airlines don't carry them as standard kit given that paramedic help is likely to be at least 20 mins away if you're in the air. Today's 'first aid' defibs don't require a medical degree to operate, they can talk you through the procedure and will only shock a shockable rhythm. Don't forget that CPR on a cardiac arrest is just buying time.... |
Originally Posted by Final 3 Greens
(Post 2875715)
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. I know that procedures change from airline to airling but in MY airline, for example, there are only 3 occasions we can contact a doctor on board, if it's an immediate life-threatening situation (like suspected anaphylactic shock), if Medlink cannot be contacted or IF medlink tells us to. Cabin crew in my airline are perfectly trained to carry out CPR, and nobody can forget the DRSABCD which are lying there at the back of our mind whatever we're doing on board. D stands for Danger, which means if there's any danger to MYSELF or the person who requires help then we must leave it until the situation changes. That is, if I have nothing to do a protected mouth-to-mouth with then I can skip it until somebody brings me some protection. But there lays the difference. We have the appropriate equipment to deal with situation like these (a relatively frequent occasion unfortunately) and we know exactly where it is. And 99% of the cabin crew in my airline would always carry a disposable "face shield" in their pocket at any time during the flight (we also have spare ones in the basic medical kit) which can be used while waiting for the resuscitation kit. I believe the problem is in the safety culture of the airlines. Probably that woman would have died anyway, but at least the crew's/management's conscience would have been relieved knowing they had tried all the possible to save that woman's life. After a stroke, a heart attack and a stillbirth in 5 years of flying, I know I would have felt a little bit better. FBW |
| All times are GMT. The time now is 15:41. |
Copyright © 2024 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.