PFD report

Davina Tavener · Prevention of Future Deaths report

Pin Get email alerts Request correction

Issued 3 Jul 2015•Manchester West

Report record

Published report and response evidence

This page connects the concerns raised in this report with statements found in recipients’ published responses. A link shows a clear evidence connection; it does not assign responsibility.

View original report
Concerns
1

Raised in this report

Recipients
3

Named on the report

Responses found
3

Of 3 recipients

Stated actions
2

Described in responses

Source document

Full report text

This is the full text from the original published report.

Open published report

Concerns and recipient responses

Select any concern, action or position to view the source wording.

Report evidence summary

Concerns raised1

  1. Lack of mandatory carriage of airway adjuncts, suction equipment, bag-valve-mask equipment and defibrillators on all aircraft
    Part of recurring concern: Failure to ensure essential clinical equipment and supplies are available and serviceablePart of recurring concern: Unreliable airway management during emergency care
Responses linked to these concerns

Each statement is shown once, even when linked to more than one concern.

Actions described in response An action is something a recipient says it has done, is doing, or plans to do in response to a concern raised.2

  1. Action

    Engage Member States to reconsider defibrillator carriage through available-data analysis and an initial discussion at the scheduled advisory-group meeting.

    Stated by European Union Aviation Safety AgencyStated plannedThe respondent said that this action was planned when they made their response on 3 July 2015.
  2. Action

    Write to Ryanair about carrying AEDs on its fleet.

    Stated by Irish Aviation AuthorityStated completedThe respondent said that this action was complete when they made their response on 3 July 2015.

Respondent positions A position is what a recipient says about a concern when it does not describe a specific action.6

  1. Position

    Existing voluntary carriage, regulatory consideration requirements and evidence review make mandating general carriage of this equipment currently difficult to justify.

    Stated by Dame Deirdre HuttonExisting arrangements considered sufficientThe respondent said that existing arrangements were sufficient, so no further action was needed.

Source evidence

How this individual concern was interpreted

PFD Monitor created a concise, searchable interpretation from the report wording shown below. Response links show a clear evidence connection; they do not assign responsibility.

PFD Monitor interpretation

Lack of mandatory carriage of airway adjuncts, suction equipment, bag-valve-mask equipment and defibrillators on all aircraft

Wider context from the report

“The Regulations do not require Aircraft to carry the equipment requested by ████████ and the minimum requirement is to carry the equipment carried by Ryanair on Flight FR2131. It was accepted that Ryanair was operating within the Regulations in relation to medical equipment on Flight FR2131. iii. The evidence at the Inquest confirmed that some Airlines do carry the equipment requested by ████████, even though there is no Regulation for such equipment to be carried. Evidence was given that the equipment is carried on some long haul flights as opposed to short haul flights but it was accepted that the differential is not relevant in view of the fact that a cardiac arrest can occur at any time whether the Aircraft is ten minutes into a flight or ten hours into a flight. iv. ████████ gave evidence, supported by the Pathologist, that when someone has suffered a cardiac arrest, time is of the essence and the equipment requested by her could be critical in an attempt to save life. ████████ confirmed that a defibrillator would be critical to survival in cardiac events and a defibrillator would give someone the best chance of survival in a situation where there is a cardiac arrest. The evidence confirmed that for every one minute when activity in the heart has stopped the chance of survival reduces by ten percent and the availability of a defibrillator at the earliest time would increase the chance of survival. Both ████████ and the Pathologist gave evidence that an airway adjunct, suction equipment, bag-valve-mask and a defibrillator should be carried on all Aircraft as a mandatory provision of medical equipment to assist in the treatment and resuscitation of a passenger on an Aircraft and to give a passenger the best chance of survival until the Aircraft can reach the nearest destination. The provision of the aforementioned equipment would be used for the reasons explained in ████████ evidence and detailed in paragraph 4.4 of this report. v. Evidence was given that all the above equipment is now available as relatively inexpensive portable equipment and, in particular, a defibrillator is very simple to operate in that the defibrillator will announce instructions in relation to use by the operator. vi. It may be felt that cases of sudden cardiac arrest on Aircraft are very rare but Airlines carrying defibrillators have led to lives being saved and the saving of a single life would justify the availability of equipment on all Aircraft for use as and when a medical emergency arises. The Federal Aviation Authority has required US Airlines to carry a defibrillator on flights since 1994. vii. The evidence raised concerns that there is a risk that future deaths will occur unless action is taken to review the above issues. ”

Is this part of a recurring concern?

Yes — Failure to ensure essential clinical equipment and supplies are available and serviceable; Unreliable airway management during emergency care.

Open source report

Source evidence

How this respondent action was interpreted

PFD Monitor created a concise, searchable interpretation from the published response wording shown below.

PFD Monitor interpretation

Engage Member States to reconsider defibrillator carriage through available-data analysis and an initial discussion at the scheduled advisory-group meeting.

Verbatim wording from the response

“We will therefore engage with our Member States to reconsider the situation through analysis of available data. We will launch a first discussion on this matter at our next meeting with Member”

Source location

2015-0252-Response-by-EASA
Page 1 · response
Published 3 July 2015

Open published response

Source evidence

How this respondent action was interpreted

PFD Monitor created a concise, searchable interpretation from the published response wording shown below.

PFD Monitor interpretation

Write to Ryanair about carrying AEDs on its fleet.

Verbatim wording from the response

“Regarding the carriage of AED’s on short-haul aircraft, there may be very little impact on the actual overall statistics. Notwithstanding that, I can confirm that the Chief Executive of the IAA has written to the Chief Executive of Ryanair on the matter. Further to that correspondence, it is our understanding that Ryanair are now positively reviewing the”

Source location

2015-0252-Response-by-IAA
Page 2 · response
Published 3 July 2015

Open published response

Source evidence

How this respondent position was interpreted

PFD Monitor created a concise, searchable interpretation from the published response wording shown below.

PFD Monitor interpretation

Existing voluntary carriage, regulatory consideration requirements and evidence review make mandating general carriage of this equipment currently difficult to justify.

Verbatim wording from the response

“Some airlines do carry defibrillators on a voluntary basis – particularly those operating on long haul sectors or mixed long haul and short sectors. The EASA regulations require operators to consider carrying them, depending on the type of their operations and other factors, such as passenger demographics (age etc). In the case of an airline operating only short haul routes, with flight durations of typically up to 3-4 hours (but often much shorter), the likelihood of a passenger who was well at the time of boarding having a significant medical event during the flight, let alone a cardiac arrest, is exceptionally small.”

Source location

2015-0252-Response-by-CAA
Page 2 · response
Published 3 July 2015

Open published response

Source evidence

How this respondent position was interpreted

PFD Monitor created a concise, searchable interpretation from the published response wording shown below.

PFD Monitor interpretation

The UK cannot act alone to introduce legal changes because mandating the equipment would require significant international agreement.

Verbatim wording from the response

“It would be for EASA to consider the need for any change in the Regulations which apply to EU operators and for ICAO to consider this in relation to non-European operators. In either case, this”

Source location

2015-0252-Response-by-CAA
Page 2 · response
Published 3 July 2015

Open published response

Source evidence

How this respondent position was interpreted

PFD Monitor created a concise, searchable interpretation from the published response wording shown below.

PFD Monitor interpretation

Passengers are not at increased risk of sudden cardiac arrest, which is exceptionally rare on short-haul flights, and defibrillators often do not succeed.

Verbatim wording from the response

“In terms of possible changes to the current regulations on compulsory carriage of defibrillators, the CAA’s current view as set out on its Aviation Health Unit website, is that cases of sudden cardiac arrest are very rare when compared to the number of passengers carried. The evidence from those airlines that have been carrying them on a voluntary basis is that although a few lives are saved, in most cases the use of a defibrillator is not successful. This is partly because some of the cases are not due to ventricular fibrillation (the most common cause of cardiac arrest) and therefore a defibrillator will not be able to restore a normal rhythm. Also even if a normal heart rhythm can be restored, the cause of the abnormal rhythm – such as a heart attack – cannot be treated until the person gets to hospital and this can take several hours.”

Source location

2015-0252-Response-by-CAA
Page 2 · response
Published 3 July 2015

Open published response

Source evidence

How this respondent position was interpreted

PFD Monitor created a concise, searchable interpretation from the published response wording shown below.

PFD Monitor interpretation

EASA must consider regulatory changes for EU operators, while ICAO must consider them for non-European operators.

Verbatim wording from the response

“It would be for EASA to consider the need for any change in the Regulations which apply to EU operators and for ICAO to consider this in relation to non-European operators. In either case, this”

Source location

2015-0252-Response-by-CAA
Page 2 · response
Published 3 July 2015

Open published response

Source evidence

How this respondent position was interpreted

PFD Monitor created a concise, searchable interpretation from the published response wording shown below.

PFD Monitor interpretation

Operators are responsible for deciding whether to carry AEDs based on the particular needs and risk assessment of each operation.

Verbatim wording from the response

“Namely the acceptable means of compliance to the rule concerned (CAT.IDE.A.225), listing the content of the Emergency Medical Kit, recommend operators to determine through risk assessment the need to carry the defibrillator. So there is no strict requirement for operators, but only a recommendation based on the result of a risk assessment.”

Source location

2015-0252-Response-by-IAA
Page 2 · response
Published 3 July 2015

Open published response

Source evidence

How this respondent position was interpreted

PFD Monitor created a concise, searchable interpretation from the published response wording shown below.

PFD Monitor interpretation

Existing EASA and ICAO arrangements, including operator risk assessments, are considered sufficient; AED carriage is not strictly required.

Verbatim wording from the response

“All AOC holders are in full compliance with the recommendations of European Aviation Safety Agency (EASA) and International Civil Aviation Organisation (ICAO).”

Source location

2015-0252-Response-by-IAA
Page 2 · response
Published 3 July 2015

Open published response

Other statements in published responses

These actions and other statements could not be clearly connected to one concern in this report.

Recipient positions A position is what a recipient says about a concern when they do not describe a specific action.1

  1. 1

    National coronial rules and resulting instructions do not apply to the agency because it is an EU agency governed by separate legal arrangements.

    Stated by European Union Aviation Safety AgencyOutside remitThe respondent said that this matter was outside its role or authority.

Source evidence

How this respondent position was interpreted

PFD Monitor created a concise, searchable interpretation from the published response wording shown below.

PFD Monitor interpretation

National coronial rules and resulting instructions do not apply to the agency because it is an EU agency governed by separate legal arrangements.

Verbatim wording from the response

“I would like to clarify the particular status of the European Aviation Safety Agency (EASA). As you may be aware, EASA is governed by Regulation (EC) 216/2008 which sets out tasks and responsibilities in the area of aviation safety. EASA’s legal status, as an Agency of the European Union, the latter being an international organisation, is further set out in Protocol (No 7) on the Privileges and Immunities of the European Union to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union. In light of this, the Agency is not subject to the national rules and procedures of a Member State, such as the Coroners and Justice Act 2009, the Coroners (Investigations) Regulations 2013 and any ensuing instructions derived therefrom.”

Source location

2015-0252-Response-by-EASA
Page 1 · response
Published 3 July 2015

Open published response
Back to top

Information checked against the published report and official responses · Data reviewed 7 Sep 2026 · About data quality and limitations

Official responses located
3/3

Data last updated 7 September 2026