Slashdot Mirror
Medical Briefcase For In-Flight Patient Evaluation
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."
satellite connection huh?
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."
Be you Admins? nay, we are but lusers!
Anyone agree the new Hooters airline might need one of these?
Of course, if they do get one, how many guys are going to fake it in order to be examined?
"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?
One plane a day on average diverts? The average diversion costs $50k-$100k to orchestrate?
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.
mogorific carpentry experiments
A crew member with proper training can use the device to complete a medical examination of the patient in 2 minutes
Hopefully this will not be the "proper training" which lets people believe that a newly trained MCSE should have "root" access.
The first time that one of these systems is used and a passenger/patient dies because his/her plane was not diverted to the closest possible landing site where the appropriate medical aid could have saved their life is the day that the airlines will ditch these devices.
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).
"Accept that some days you are the pigeon, and some days you are the statue." - David Brent, Wernham Hogg
When I see a situation with people in charge of someone else's medical care in any way, I see the potential for a lawsuit. If the use of these medical kits amount to a medical diagnosis, then the person in charge of administering the diagnosis may be at risk of being sued for malpractice.
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
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.
"She's a scientist and a lesbian. She's not going to let it slide." Orphan Black
Lets address much of what has been said point by point. Before I get flamed, my qualifications are: eleven years in the flight operations department (ever get your flight cancelled? -- that was me). Also married to a flight attendant (she of twelve years experience, and yes, a hottie :)
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.