Thanks Thanks:  281
Likes Likes:  659
Dislikes Dislikes:  29
Page 3 of 56 FirstFirst 123451353 ... LastLast
Results 51 to 75 of 1396
  1. #51
    C/S
    Join Date
    Mar 2005
    Posts
    6,511
    Post Thanks / Like
    @tadpole, I'd imagine the criteria for a non-airfield landing would prefer a solid road, even a third-class one, over and above a wet Irish field. At least a road is a known quantity.
    @billybob, this project to include the Don certainly smells of job protection to me.

    With regard to the aforementioned serviceability, trying for 100% is fool's gold. Most airlines look for and achieve servicability/reliability of greater than 96% and get it. In reality, this means that if you have ten aircraft on hand on any day of the week, you can expect to fly eight or nine per rotation per day. A typical airliner will fly for eight hours a day, can easily do twelve and sixteen hours a day is common.It's rare that a snag takes as long as a day to fix, unless it's a damage issue or a delay for spares. I remember twice seeing eight Alouettes aloft, but it was only for a short time and, in both events, some were immediately grounded when they landed. The AC typically ran at about 60-70% availability. It's probably better now but they'd need to be generating 80% plus per day to compete with the real world.

    regards
    GttC

  2. #52
    Sergeant Major
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Posts
    907
    Post Thanks / Like
    I'd imagine the criteria for a non-airfield landing would prefer a solid road, even a third-class one, over and above a wet Irish field. At least a road is a known quantity.
    Of course you will only land somewhere that can support the aircraft but its a myth that the aircraft has to land on top of the casualty to be effective. Cant land beside them, then land up the road a bit, its not a reason not to use the 139. Besides the 139 in terms of footprint isnt hugely bigger and in terms of Class 1 departures actually has a smaller footprint due to its take off profile.

    The AC typically ran at about 60-70% availability. It's probably better now
    I wouldn't bet the house on it.

  3. Thanks Turkey thanked for this post
  4. #53
    Space Lord of Terra morpheus's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2003
    Location
    Metropolis
    Posts
    3,088
    Post Thanks / Like
    [quote]Besides the 139 in terms of footprint isnt hugely bigger[\quote]

    Its 30% bigger!

    AW139 footprint 16.66 meters, main rotor diameter 13.8 meters
    EC135 footprint 12.16 meters, main rotor diameter 10.2 meters

    source
    AW139
    http://www.vectorsite.net/ava109.html#m5
    and
    EC135
    http://www.vectorsite.net/aveucop.html#m4
    Last edited by morpheus; 18th January 2012 at 15:23.
    "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."

  5. #54
    CQMS jack nastyface's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2010
    Posts
    225
    Post Thanks / Like
    Heard Dublin Coastguard did a HEMS job somewhere near Trim the other night.

  6. #55
    Sergeant Major
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Posts
    907
    Post Thanks / Like
    Its 30% bigger!

    AW139 footprint 16.66 meters, main rotor diameter 13.8 meters
    EC135 footprint 12.16 meters, main rotor diameter 10.2 meters
    Oh Wow!! You need a field that's a whole 15ft bigger!! God bless me how will you ever find a field that big in Ireland?

  7. #56
    CQMS Tempest's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    Location
    Surrey, UK
    Posts
    249
    Post Thanks / Like
    Had Surrey HEMS chopper arrive in my town recently for a RTA - circled and ID'd the RTA, found closest field to drop off medical crew. When the decision was made to CASEVAC a patient the chopper, after local police imput, flew to a second location, a small public park, and patient was wheeled/carried to second site. As long as the chopper is reasonably accessible, it doesn't have to land on a road.

  8. #57
    Private 2* DirkinDaHerc's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Posts
    24
    Post Thanks / Like
    Hi All,

    Long time watcher first time posting!!

    Interesting thread, The old AL3 were cramped and difficult to work in from what i recall (especially in the Alpine/French mtn role). The front Left seat turned for the crewman/Medic and then the Doc and Nurse sat next to each other, and various monitoring equipment was hung around the cabin or attached to the stretcher in various AD hoc ways. When it came to treatment or a requirement for serious medical intervention (De fibrillation, airway adjuncts etc) what u had was a crewman and doctor with nurse trying to apply their trades with sometimes mixed results. But we continued on cause it was for the good of the people that the service was maintained, good for the crews to have a role, and it was all we were going to get with regard to what AC type we had.

    In the UK the Bo 105 was used for a period (and might still be) by Air Med in Hampshire, i took the time to talk to the crews one day and asked about practicality of the AC and lay out. It was a seriously neg review, and from what i was shown the AL3 had more room in it!!

    The AW139 when fitted for the role is a good machine, i suspect the AC are using the 135 cause of serviceability and crew availabilities, plus the ongoing issues with the 139s is a worry, but apparently AW are working on a new tail blade design to work out the kinks...

    The use of the HSE paramedics is not a surprise as the AC have not invested into the training of their crews to the old level which was Paramedic. From what i hear they only have 2 state registered paramedics from the old school crews that were there. But if you believe the stories, the AC management recruited or attempted recruitment directly from the Army Medical Corps due to the cost to paying NASC (National Ambulance Service College) the money to train the crews up. (not to mention the time away from the base to complete the intensive course content.) Also i think (i stand to be corrected) that a Paramedic cannot hand a seriously injured casualty over to a "lesser grade" as in EMT.

    It will be interesting to see what the level of cover will be, availability, working hours etc that they will provide. Indeed I think there will be a huge spotlight on them from all angles.

    If it saves life's I am for it, if its yet another attempt my the HSE to make them look good cause of all the front line cuts,,,... then I fear life's will be lost and the AC will become a scapegoat for their Government Masters.

    DITH

  9. #58
    Space Lord of Terra morpheus's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2003
    Location
    Metropolis
    Posts
    3,088
    Post Thanks / Like
    Quote Originally Posted by Tadpole View Post
    Oh Wow!! You need a field that's a whole 15ft bigger!! God bless me how will you ever find a field that big in Ireland?
    It still limits the 139 more than the 135, especially at night and in proximity to buildings, trees, on country roadsides or pylons etc
    "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."

  10. #59
    Sergeant Major
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Posts
    907
    Post Thanks / Like
    No Morpheus, it doesn't. The reality is that if you are landing in an area that's big enough for a 40' helicopter but too small for a 55' helicopter I would suggest you shouldn't be there in the 40' helicopter either. What is limiting is the payload of the 135 Vs the 139. You will have to make compromises between pilots / crew / medics and fuel, not a good place to be in a dynamic operation like HEMS esp in today's Ireland where refueling points are becoming few and far between due to regional airport cutbacks.

    Have the medics run 100 yards from a field up the road or run short of fuel? Give me the fuel anyday.

  11. #60
    Space Lord of Terra morpheus's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2003
    Location
    Metropolis
    Posts
    3,088
    Post Thanks / Like
    fair enough, just contributing to the debate, what do i know, im just a grunt with a passing interest in things that try to stay airborne.
    "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."

  12. #61
    Banned User
    Join Date
    Jan 2005
    Posts
    933
    Post Thanks / Like
    Why not allow St Johns ambulance or the Knights of Malta etc to operate a few helicopters and let them do the air ambulalce.

  13. Dislikes Goldie fish disliked this post
  14. #62
    Sergeant Major
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Posts
    907
    Post Thanks / Like
    Resources currently available, no money for more helicopters for more bodies.
    Also dont know if these groups have paramedics which would be a minimum requirement.

  15. #63
    C/S
    Join Date
    Mar 2005
    Posts
    6,511
    Post Thanks / Like
    Hi all,
    lets get back to basics for a bit. The same argument as to why Don pilots fly a Garda heli is being played out here. Officially, it's to prevent the duplication of resources, ie, two sets of pilots/mechs/hangars/support staff,etc and a consequent drain on the Justice budget. No point in doing that when there are Don pilots and facilities handy, which is why they are now trying to continue to do the decidedly non-military task of air ambulance on the basis of (a) we've been doing since 1963 (b) we've got spare pilots and aircraft (c) it keeps them current on evac techniques so that they can feel that they can transfer skills to operational real-time casevac in a warzone and (d) because they would sell their mothers for flight hours.

    regards
    GttC

  16. Likes Turkey liked this post
  17. #64
    Sergeant Major
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Posts
    907
    Post Thanks / Like
    Morpheus, to be fair to you if we were talking about military operations where the aircraft can be put at risk to complete an operation you would have a point but in the HEMS role with civvies on board the aircraft shouldn't really be put into such a tight area when with almost 100% certainty in this country you will get a safer landing site within a very short distance and therefore able to take either machine.

  18. #65
    Closed Account Goldie fish's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2003
    Location
    you already know too much
    Posts
    33,440
    Post Thanks / Like
    Quote Originally Posted by BANDIT View Post
    Why not allow St Johns ambulance or the Knights of Malta etc to operate a few helicopters and let them do the air ambulalce.
    whooosh.

  19. #66
    Captain Jetjock's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Posts
    1,732
    Post Thanks / Like
    Quote Originally Posted by billybob View Post
    Jetjock the rules and limitations you refer to are already very well known. They are called JAR OPS 3.
    The AC being a military operation with military registered and crewed aircraft will not be bound by JAR OPS 3.

    They would however be mad not to use it as a basis for their own in house defined procedures and limitations.

    Despite the obvious benefits of following best European best practice, they are still free to define their own HEMS operating procedures. Where JAR OPS 3 applies is not defined by role(HEMS in this case), rather it's defined by being a civilian outfit or not.

  20. #67
    Private 2*
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Posts
    10
    Post Thanks / Like
    They will be bound by JAR OPS 3 with new EASA regulations on this though!!

    Despite the great job the IAC do on this HEMS is very defined by its operating procedures!

    Performance criteria from operating at some of the hospital sites around the country that is currently carried out is questionable! As is public transport flights!!

    In my opinion this sort of activity needs regulation......hence the new EASA regulation that is on its way in April.

  21. #68
    Sergeant Major
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Posts
    907
    Post Thanks / Like
    Despite the obvious benefits of following best European best practice, they are still free to define their own HEMS operating procedures. Where JAR OPS 3 applies is not defined by role(HEMS in this case), rather it's defined by being a civilian outfit or not
    Jetjock,
    You are correct that the military can effectively write their own rules when it comes to operational procedures, after all what risks they want to take with their own personnel is up to them. In this case however, with civilian personnel as part of the full time crew and therefore fully exposed to all aspects of these military regulations, it is my personal opinion that the full extent of JAR OPS 3 should be enforced and over seen by the IAA. If that's not acceptable then either go full military or full civil, the military dancing around civil regs while utilising civil personnel in their crew because they cannot provide just isn't playing ball.

  22. Thanks Jetjock thanked for this post
  23. #69
    Captain Jetjock's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Posts
    1,732
    Post Thanks / Like
    I absolutely agree there should be external enforcement when it comes to this. Legally though, there is no basis for enforcement of specific JAR OPS in this case.

    However, an IAA/IAC regulator/operator specific legally enforcable agreement defined by exactly what JAR OPS says(or close) most definitely must be the basis for this service, given the civilian personnel, civilian casualties and indeed the high risk nature of the operation.

    Now if the IAC agree to subject themselves to JAR OPS when in the HEMS role, that itself would solve this issue. We'll have to wait and see.

    The implications of JAR OPS compliance are wider than just the flying operations. An AOC application would need to be submitted. Maintenance and certification of aircraft would have to comply with Part 145. Engineers would need to be retrained for JAR approval etc.

    If the AC agree to external oversight for this, and thats still a big if, I would imagine that a regulator/operator specific agreement would be the most attractive option for them.

  24. #70
    Private 2*
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Posts
    10
    Post Thanks / Like
    [QUOTE=Jetjock;360889]I absolutely agree there should be external enforcement when it comes to this. Legally though, there is no basis for enforcement of specific JAR OPS in this case.

    Be careful there....public patients and HSE Staff on board......this would be open to all sorts of legal angles in the event of a incident. IAC criteria and JAR OPS 3 criteria very very different when it comes to performance and landing sites.

    Public Transport in my book

  25. #71
    Sergeant Major
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Posts
    907
    Post Thanks / Like
    In my opinion this sort of activity needs regulation......hence the new EASA regulation that is on its way in April.
    Dan,
    Jetjock is 100% correct. While HEMS is regulated for civilian operations the military are not and this will not change with EASA. EASA cannot and will not regulate the following: Military, Coastguard, Police, SAR or Fire fighting operations. Cannot because you cannot write definitive rules for these operations and will not because to try would be too complex to even try. Civil functions such as SAR,CG,Police and Fire fighting will remain the remit of the National Aviation Authority while Military Aviation will remain the remit of the State concerned (ie the military authorities)

  26. #72
    C/S
    Join Date
    Mar 2005
    Posts
    6,511
    Post Thanks / Like
    I would take it as read that they would follow JAR Ops 3 (for the most part and when it suits them) because they have long had a history of piggybacking on civvie legislation anyway, which was effectively forced on them years ago when they began operating executive jets. The Don had to do a lot of growing-up when it came to operating a HS-125 and King Airs to modern commercial standards, especially when they had to conduct MATS operations in deepest Europe and found their standards and facilities wanting. With regard to heli ops, some of the landing sites used by the Don, way back when, on ATCP and ambulance ops, were below modern standards. In fact, a lot of the hospital pads still do not meet modern standards and are effectively off-limits because of power/weight limits, encroaching obstacles, unclean approachs and bad slopes and so on.

    Any OC Heli knows that if he steps outside JAR Ops 3, he'd want to have a damn good reason to do so, especially if he wants to cover his ass after an accident.

    regards
    GttC

  27. #73
    Captain Jetjock's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Posts
    1,732
    Post Thanks / Like
    Agreed GTTC. To deviate away from a JAR OPS model would be madness and no doubt they will come up with something along those lines. Will they come to an agreement with the IAA for external enforcement however or will they self regulate?

    A good comparison would be MATS as you mention. Military aircraft/civilian passengers. How is this regulated? Obviously aligned along civil operating standards but is regulation internal or external?

  28. #74
    Sergeant Major
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Posts
    907
    Post Thanks / Like
    A good comparison would be MATS as you mention. Military aircraft/civilian passengers. How is this regulated? Obviously aligned along civil operating standards but is regulation internal or external?
    I think the comparison is a good one but the biggest difference is that the MATS civilians are passengers where as the HSE paramedics will be full time crew. Even just from an exposure to risk perspective the HSE Paramedics should be considered somewhat differently.
    Regulation is completely internal. In fact its only the last few years that the AAIU are even allowed near AC accidents.

  29. #75
    Major General
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Posts
    3,043
    Post Thanks / Like
    c.1998

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •