You are forgetting that 4 x S92s should have been in the mix as well.
The idea was that the Gazelles, Alouettes and Dauphins were supposed to be all replaced with a single type. “Squirrel type†was mentioned in order to get commonality with the relatively new(at the time) GASU Squirrel. As we know the Squirrel was replaced by the EC135 in GASU service.
Why 8 Alouettes? Detachment at Finner, detachment at Monaghan and SAR.
Why 5 Dauphins? SAR detachment (1 at various places), 2 for the NS HPVs.
Everything else was spare capacity for VIP, army co-op, air ambulance, etc etc etc.
Why were those figures chosen? Probably something to do with having a min amount available at one time
The decision on replacing the Warriors and Fougas with a single type was based on 1 higher performance aircraft type being capable of doing basic and advanced training. The fleet size would have been based on have x amount available.
It is saving money of course it is. But there is also method in the madness.
Look at when these decisions were made. Post GFA.
Also every additional aircraft type reduced the pool of pilots and techs to work on them.
Is it ideal no but as far as I’m concerned the fewer types the better.
https://www.facebook.com/photo.php?f...type=3&theater
AIRCORPS112 operating as ALPHA WHISKEY 274 conducting Night Vision Landings at UH Galway on Tuesday last week.
Picture:David McGrath
No words needed. Great job by all and so well carried out.
More resources needed for 24/7
http://www.shannonside.ie/news/local...-new-training/
Recent HIQA report on P1 transplant transfers to UK
https://www.hiqa.ie/sites/default/fi...TA-Nov2017.pdf
Long term recommendations additional IRCG aircraft or GASU-type AC op
Short term night P1 air ambulance missions is now contracted out to Capital Air Ambulance UK
https://flyinginireland.com/2018/01/...ance-contract/
Last edited by DeV; 2nd January 2018 at 07:44.
4 years old now at this stage
http://health.gov.ie/wp-content/uplo...-watermark.pdf
According to Denis Naughton on RTE this morning, the Cabinet decided yesterday (as part of the Trauma plan) to provide a 2nd air ambulance for the South of the country
wonder is this good or bad for the air corps?
"He is an enemy officer taken in battle and entitled to fair treatment."
"No, sir. He's a sergeant, and they don't deserve no respect at all, sir. I should know. They're cunning and artful, if they're any good. I wouldn't mind if he was an officer, sir. But sergeants are clever."
already one in south........might see Gov investment to formalise it. But won't be surprised if the wheel has to be re-invented as usual.
http://communityairambulance.ie/
The people of England have been led in Mesopotamia into a trap from which it will be hard to escape with dignity and honour. They have been tricked into it by a steady withholding of information. The Baghdad communiqués are belated, insincere, incomplete.....It is a disgrace to our imperial record, and may soon be too inflamed for any ordinary cure.We are to-day not far from a disaster.
T.E. Lawrence, 2 Aug 1920.
It's good for people who want a career working for commercial aviation providers and to have a short commute into work from their homes on the outskirts of a bustling city, but bad news for the air mobility arm of a military force.
Of course, the AC is only there to service one of those functions...
I prefer the Cork air ambulance that is a private venture. They have basically ICU equipment on board and a doctore flying weith them. This is the wasy to do it. Together with IFR. My suggestion would be to take the 139s and convert them to propeer ambulance choppers, give the pilots night vision goggles so they can operate as close to 24/7 as possible. We'll also need them to transfer patients much more with the plan to have a few specialised trauma centers in the country.
This sounds like a good use for them. Then buy some real military choppers.
Does that Cork medevac helicopter service operate as a charitable trust with corporate sponsorship or a corporate outfit set up as a service provider? Down under both the charitable trust approach and service provider model are the common governance model for medevac services.
Kind of related to this and of possible interest is that last year Starflight one of the OZ aviation service providers who does medevac and firefighting will soon operate ten refurbished and zero-houred ex US Army UH-60's with an option for another ten.
https://www.lockheedmartin.com.au/au.../28072017.html
My understanding of ICAA is that it is a charitable organisation purely charity funded (no corporate sponsor). They need to raise €1M to get it off the ground and €2M annually to run the service with a EC135.
Once the Lifeport system and equipment is in a AW139 it has (AFAIK) every it needs. I agree a trauma doctor (and AC AP/crewman) would be a big advantage.
The pilots already have NVG and are trained in their use.
Why is EAS daylight only?
(a) the AC probably doesn’t have enough pilots to do it 24/7
(b) much more importantly, HEMS type work such as this is the most dangerous type of (civvy) flying possible, doing it at night increases the risk massively.
If any HEMS service was to do 24/7 they will only ever do it to preselected lit HLZs.
Blackhawks cost roughly double that of a AW139
For transports from regular hospitals to traume centres that would do just fine
one would assume that military personnel should be able to handle dangerous flying and be able to command resources that are not availab;le to civvies? A FLIR pod on the chopper migfht help for instance?
oh and not a trauma doc. An anaestesiologist. Emergency doctors are in the busniess of keeping patients alive, not operating on the spot![]()
http://www.aaiu.ie/sites/default/fil...2013-004_0.pdf
Have a look at the AAIU report
Hardly any hospitals in this country have their own (proper) helipad - it is normally a nearby airport, park or sports pitch that is utilised. The AW139 has access to FLIR and NVG but NVG at least create depth perception issues and neither will help you see things like wires.
Just because they are military personnel doesn’t mean they are immune to risk, danger or error. Even if they are the civvy doctor/AP, the patient, the people around the HLZ most certainly aren’t.
You look at the risks, you assess them, you see what you can do to mitigate them and if it’s still to risky - you don’t do it. We are talking about min 4 people on the helo excluding patient - you don’t risk life unnecessarily.
Generally doctors used on HEMS flights have 1 of 3/4 specialities (I can’t remember the others), different organisations do it differently
I will, thanks
Yup, this should be changed at the same time, so there is a reasonable network and an ambulance for instance can pick up a patient at night and proceed to the nearest helipad with hospital. Primary care given in ambulance (which also should have a doctor) and local hospital until chopper arrives.
There isn’t enough doctors in hospitals.
NAS needs more APs. Paramedics and APs need to be able to refer and discharge patients within their capabilities
I like the ICRR model (although it isn’t really fair to rely on good will). I would tend to agree that maybe there should be an AC crewman(AP) and a doctor on EAS
Only 4 of the countries model 4 hospitals have helipads (2 of them have unrestricted access for IRCG S92s), only 1 operational helipad on campus in Dublin and only 1 helipad in the country that has direct access to A&E
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)