			Home About us Contact

Commercial Aircraft (commercial + aircraft)

Distribution by Scientific Domains

Medical Sciences	60%

Selected Abstracts

Commercial aviation in-flight emergencies and the physician

EMERGENCY MEDICINE AUSTRALASIA, Issue 1 2007
Robert Cocks
Abstract Commercial aviation in-flight emergencies are relatively common, so it is likely that a doctor travelling frequently by air will receive a call for help at some stage in their career. These events are stressful, even for experienced physicians. The present paper reviews what is known about the incidence and types of in-flight emergencies that are likely to be encountered, the international regulations governing medical kits and drugs, and the liability, fitness and indemnity issues facing ,Good Samaritan' medical volunteers. The medical and aviation literature was searched, and information was collated from airlines and other sources regarding medical equipment available on board commercial aircraft. Figures for the incidence of significant in-flight emergencies are approximately 1 per 10,40 000 passengers, with one death occurring per 3,5 million passengers. Medically related diversion of an aircraft following an in-flight emergency may occur in up to 7,13% of cases, but passenger prescreening, online medical advice and on-board medical assistance from volunteers reduce this rate. Medical volunteers may find assisting with an in-flight emergency stressful, but should acknowledge that they play a vital role in successful outcomes. The medico-legal liability risk is extremely small, and various laws and industry indemnity practices offer additional protection to the volunteer. In addition, cabin crew receive training in a number of emergency skills, including automated defibrillation, and are one of several sources of help available to the medical volunteer, who is not expected to work alone. [source]

Clinic in the Air?

JOURNAL OF TRAVEL MEDICINE, Issue 6 2008
A Retrospective Study of Medical Emergency Calls From A Major International Airline
Background There is a high likelihood of a medical professional being onboard the aircraft at the time of emergency. Therefore, a health-care professional should be familiar with in-flight medical events and how to deal with them. Methods I present a 12-month retrospective study of medical distress calls from a major Asian international airline for which International SOS provided in-flight telemedical assistance. All the calls from the airplane to our center were analyzed from January 1, 2006, to January 1, 2007. The number of recommended diversions, availability of a medical professional, the range of medical problems, and used medications were considered. Results Overall, there were 191 in-flight air-to-ground consultations. Twenty-three (12.04%) calls were made for pediatric problems, with the youngest patient being 9 months old. Gastrointestinal complaints and simple faints comprised 50.2% of all calls. Most of the in-flight problems were successfully treated symptomatically with the initial recommendation to lie the patient down and administer oxygen. Metoclopramide, stemetil, loperamide, and buscopan were the most often administered drugs. A doctor was onboard in 45.5% of all calls. A recommendation to divert the aircraft was made in six (3.1%) cases. Conclusions Although developments in telemedical assistance and the content of a medical kit make the management of potential in-flight medical emergency much easier, they will never turn a commercial aircraft into a flying clinic. Preflight check-in screening by airlines and encouraging future air travelers with health concerns to seek medical help before flying should be recommended. [source]

Directly measured cabin pressure conditions during Boeing 747,400 commercial aircraft flights

RESPIROLOGY, Issue 4 2007
Paul T. KELLY
Background and objectives: In the low pressure environment of commercial aircraft, hypoxaemia may be common and accentuated in patients with lung or heart disease. Regulations specify a cabin pressure not lower than 750 hPa but it is not known whether this standard is met. This knowledge is important in determining the hazards of commercial flight for patients and the validity of current flight simulation tests. Methods: Using a wrist-watch recording altimeter, cabin pressure was recorded at 60 s intervals on 45 flights in Boeing 747,400 aircraft with three airlines. A log was kept of aircraft altitude using the in-flight display. Change in cabin pressure during flight, relationship between aircraft altitude and cabin pressure and proportion of flight time with cabin pressure approaching the minimum specified by regulation were determined. Results: Flight duration averaged 10 h. Average cabin pressure during flight was 846 hPa. There was a linear fall in cabin pressure as the aircraft cruising altitude increased. At 10 300 m (34 000 ft) cabin pressure was 843 hPa and changed 8 hPa for every 300 m (1000 ft) change in aircraft altitude (r2 = 0.993; P < 0.001). Lowest cabin pressure was 792 hPa at 12 200 m (40 000 ft) but during only 2% of flight time was cabin pressure less than 800 hPa. Conclusions Cabin pressure is determined only by the engineering of the aircraft and its altitude and in the present study was always higher than required by regulation. Current fitness-to-fly evaluations simulate cabin conditions that passengers will not experience on these aircraft. There may be increased risks to patients should new or older aircraft operate nearer to the present minimum standard. [source]

Aircraft type-specific errors in AMDAR weather reports from commercial aircraft

THE QUARTERLY JOURNAL OF THE ROYAL METEOROLOGICAL SOCIETY, Issue 630 2008
C. Drüe
Abstract AMDAR (Aircraft Meteorological DAta Relay) automated weather reports from commercial aircraft provide an increasing amount of input data for numerical weather prediction models. Previous studies have investigated the quality of AMDAR data. Few of these studies, however, have revealed indications of systematic errors dependent upon the aircraft type. Since different airlines use different algorithms to generate AMDAR reports, it has remained unclear whether a dependency on the aircraft type is caused by physical properties of the aircraft or by different data processing algorithms. In the present study, a special AMDAR dataset was used to investigate the physical type-dependent errors of AMDAR reports. This dataset consists of AMDAR measurements by Lufthansa aircraft performing over 300 landings overall at Frankfurt Rhein/Main (EDDF/FRA) on 22 days in 2004. All of this data has been processed by the same software, implying that influences from different processing algorithms should not be expected. From the comparison of single descents to hourly averaged vertical profiles, it is shown that temperature measurements by different aircraft types can have systematic differences of up to 1 K. In contrast, random temperature errors of most types are estimated to be less than 0.3 K. It is demonstrated that systematic deviations in AMDAR wind measurements can be regarded as an error vector, which is fixed to the aircraft reference system. The largest systematic deviations in wind measurements from different aircraft types (more than 0.5 m s,1) were found to exist in the longitudinal direction (i.e. parallel to the flight direction). Copyright © 2008 Royal Meteorological Society [source]