Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Air Corps air ambulance

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Originally posted by Clacks View Post
    Sorry about that but I assumed we were all aviators here. Emergency Aeromedical service which is in the service agreements for the coast guard since about 2008, HEMs, HSE and IAC you know, Advanced paramedic, dept of Defence, Irish Aviation Authority and national ambulance service.

    Two things strike me. One is when 4 x 92s are in play Ireland will be well served. What the 61's have done for years and years is EAS work but labelled SAR. Now that EAS work is being extended into the HEMS arena. secondly the 135 and 139 are more suitable HEMS aircraft and have AP's onboard all the time and are fully dedicated to the NAS. Coast Guard is not. So SARMAN is right. Coast Guard will fill in where the IAC cant. History here is not kind to the IAC on reliability so thats an issue should the trial extend past 12 months.

    So it is happy days for the citizens of ireland. they have in effect competition in the HEMS market - that can only be good for the patient/
    Sooo Clacks - I think you either chose not to read my previous posts or just ignore them. I'll restate the situation. EAS is a NEW SERVICE and did NOT form part of service agreements with the IRCG dating back to 2008. Sure, the S61's did the odd Air Amb (As the AC complete Inter-hospital transfers) and routinely did Medevacs which were all generally classified as SAR's for performance and public transport related issues. EAS delivers AP and/or doctors to the scene and is a trial run for a full HEMS service. There is no other HEMS service in the country at the moment much as you would try to spin it otherwise but you're not alone there - even the DoT website is at it. The S92 may have a HEMS certification but unless it's a dedicated service that can deliver AP support within the allotted timeframe then it's not a full HEMS service.

    I agree with you in that the 135/139 are more suitable HEMS type a/c as the S92 is simply too big for routine HEMS work IMO but can fill in of course if the regular service is unavailable. Don't know if it's CHC or the IRCG pushing the S92 x 4 , sorry five, as an all-ireland HEMS platform. If you were a neutral observer you could say that they can't be that busy on the SAR front so and of course the elephant in the room remains......is it all included in the €523 million price tag or will there be extra invoices on the way?

    Comment


    • While I personally feel the current AC/HSE experiment has shown the need for an EAS / HEMS service it would be interesting to see more stats on the break down of casualties and geographic location. PH is quite right in saying that the AC/HSE EAS has an AP on board which is a great benefit but would I prefer to sit on the side of a road waiting for an AP from Athlone when a helicopter with 2 paramedics (and a road AP if needed) could have me in A&E with doctors, specialist equipment and ORs if needed in less time?
      When 4*92s are on line I would think that many of the current AC/HSE EAS operations will fall under the S92 operational umbrellas due to faster response times to the scene in most directions bar directly towards Athlone, effectively most of the country. This in itself doesn't mean that there is no need for an Athlone based service, I actually think that both could be very complementary to each other and back each other up as required.

      I also have no particular issue with the IAC providing this service BUT and its a big but.....
      The Government have given this role to the IAC and by all accounts its to save money, fair enough. However two points:

      1. Firstly the only mention of cost that we have seen for the running of the service was during the press release, about a million Euro I seem to recall but is this really the full cost of the service to the taxpayer? For example the taxpayer is paying for a €12m aircraft to now be dedicated to the EAS. Based on a 20 year life span thats €600K per year for the aircraft alone. Crew salaries? Expenses? Flight costs? Flight costs to and from Bal every day? The true cost to the taxpayer is likely to be significantly higher then that already declared which would put it in the region of civil operators that were not allowed to tender. Now this isnt a major issue if no accommodations have been taken to make this cost saving but we dont know if they have because.....

      2. The IAC are a self regulating and self auditing operation with no external oversight of any kind. This kind of organisation is insular and prone to serious lapses within its organisation. Can you imagine Ryanair with no regulation or oversight???
      The EAS operation is NOT a military operation, its a civil operation with civil clients (the HSE and the patients) and fulltime civil staff. Therefore if the Government want the IAC to fulfill the task then the taxpayers of the country should have the same transparency of the operation, its maintenance and its safety as with any other civil operator. That doesn't mean the IAC laying itself bare but this specific section of the IAC, the EAS and all its aspects, should come under the oversight of the IAA so that transparency of the operation can be provided. This could be as simple as auditing the IAC operation to ensure the same or equivalent procedures, certifications, crew experience / currency etc as required under JAR Ops with IAA capability to oblige the IAC to meet agreed standards or shut the operation down. That's not too big an ask, is it?

      PH, dont get too hung up on a title. EAS is a made up title to dodge the requirements of HEMS but work wider then the restrictions of Air Ambulance, nothing more and hence there is no definition of what equipment or staffing constitutes an EAS. As for the usual trawling out of the additional cost question, no there wont be any additional cost as the IRCG were smart enough to place it in the tender and is already included.

      Comment


      • Isn't it the case that the AC EAS is requested by NAS personnel on scene!?

        Comment


        • Originally posted by Happyman View Post
          I’d hate to be out and sea and need a helicopter to find out it’s doing HEMS job! I thought their contact was to supply maritime Search and Rescue?
          I'd have hated to be out at sea over Xmas needing a helicopter, only to find a SAR asset might have being doing a HEMS job because another heli wasn't available. You cover all your bases as best you can, there is scope for overlap.
          Last edited by Helihead; 5 January 2013, 20:54.

          Comment


          • Tadpole,
            That all sound great about openness and transparency. Just as a matter of interest, has a preliminary report into the 135 accident been released yet ? Are they not usually released within a months or two after an accident?

            Comment


            • Originally posted by Tadpole View Post
              While I personally feel the current AC/HSE experiment has shown the need for an EAS / HEMS service it would be interesting to see more stats on the break down of casualties and geographic location. PH is quite right in saying that the AC/HSE EAS has an AP on board which is a great benefit but would I prefer to sit on the side of a road waiting for an AP from Athlone when a helicopter with 2 paramedics (and a road AP if needed) could have me in A&E with doctors, specialist equipment and ORs if needed in less time?
              When 4*92s are on line I would think that many of the current AC/HSE EAS operations will fall under the S92 operational umbrellas due to faster response times to the scene in most directions bar directly towards Athlone, effectively most of the country. This in itself doesn't mean that there is no need for an Athlone based service, I actually think that both could be very complementary to each other and back each other up as required.

              I also have no particular issue with the IAC providing this service BUT and its a big but.....
              The Government have given this role to the IAC and by all accounts its to save money, fair enough. However two points:

              1. Firstly the only mention of cost that we have seen for the running of the service was during the press release, about a million Euro I seem to recall but is this really the full cost of the service to the taxpayer? For example the taxpayer is paying for a €12m aircraft to now be dedicated to the EAS. Based on a 20 year life span thats €600K per year for the aircraft alone. Crew salaries? Expenses? Flight costs? Flight costs to and from Bal every day? The true cost to the taxpayer is likely to be significantly higher then that already declared which would put it in the region of civil operators that were not allowed to tender. Now this isnt a major issue if no accommodations have been taken to make this cost saving but we dont know if they have because.....

              2. The IAC are a self regulating and self auditing operation with no external oversight of any kind. This kind of organisation is insular and prone to serious lapses within its organisation. Can you imagine Ryanair with no regulation or oversight???
              The EAS operation is NOT a military operation, its a civil operation with civil clients (the HSE and the patients) and fulltime civil staff. Therefore if the Government want the IAC to fulfill the task then the taxpayers of the country should have the same transparency of the operation, its maintenance and its safety as with any other civil operator. That doesn't mean the IAC laying itself bare but this specific section of the IAC, the EAS and all its aspects, should come under the oversight of the IAA so that transparency of the operation can be provided. This could be as simple as auditing the IAC operation to ensure the same or equivalent procedures, certifications, crew experience / currency etc as required under JAR Ops with IAA capability to oblige the IAC to meet agreed standards or shut the operation down. That's not too big an ask, is it?

              PH, dont get too hung up on a title. EAS is a made up title to dodge the requirements of HEMS but work wider then the restrictions of Air Ambulance, nothing more and hence there is no definition of what equipment or staffing constitutes an EAS. As for the usual trawling out of the additional cost question, no there wont be any additional cost as the IRCG were smart enough to place it in the tender and is already included.
              Not getting hung up on the title at all but only providing some clarification (DoT webmaster inc) on the background of the service which is, as we all know not a IRCG initiative as claimed by the website inc some false stats. Glad to hear there won't be any additional costs but forgive me for being a little sceptical. are you refering to an AA or HEMS provision in the contract?

              I think both services can probably compliment each other into the future but I think that the HSE/NAS will go with the dedicated service whenever available. However the S92 will be a potent back-up. Your point supports my original contention though that without EAS/HEMS activity it's hard to justify the massive spend on SAR. Guess it's a NAS clinical decision to decide what's best for the patient in the specific scenario.

              Your correct in terms of the cost in that it's not for free but obviously significantly cheaper than the civil option or else it wouldn't be happening. The a/c would probably have a longer life than 20yrs and at the moment they're available for other IAC taskings/trg after the service ends at the end of VFR. Anyway if there's spare capacity in one Gov't Dept. why shouldn't that be used to support another? The success of the GASU is a testament to this where there's a mutual benefit to both Dept's.

              I think you might be getting a bit hung up on the audit thing. As yoy know the military do not have to conform to JAR-Ops but effectively do for all civil type ops particularly this op and do it every bit as well as any civil operator but probably for a lot less pay! The incident with the EAS is subject to an AAIU investigation as the previous PC9 accident was so you're wrong to say it's not subject to "any external oversight of any kind". The HSE are the customer and they seem quite happy with the service as do numerous other civil customers up to and including HOS. Similarly the IAA are not interested in that they don't see it as a civil operation but a military one.

              Comment


              • Lads & Ladies.
                Lets get over the whole CG v AC thing and work along side each other, the AC are doing a good job with the EAS I think that has been proven. The CG could be a back up to this service provided that God forbid a vessel is sinking of the coast and there is a mass casualty incident inland at the same time. Resources should be utilised and I would like to think that if these two incidents were happening at seperate times that one could dig out the other.

                I for one if I found myself in a spot of bother inland or off-shore would not give one continental F*** the colour of the helicopter that came to my aid. If it meant getting to a centre of that I required to be quicker who gives a S***.

                It would be better if both organisations worked side by side in getting heli-pads were needed.

                That is all for now....
                Although I have walked in the valley of the shadows of death I fear no evil...

                Comment


                • The status of the AC wrt JAR/HEMS etc will be exposed in the AAIU report into the 135 prang,if anything uncomfortable was arising in the investigation one would expect remedial action as appropriate to be taken in advance of final report.
                  Is AA covered/included in the AOC that CHC have.

                  Comment


                  • Originally posted by Tadpole View Post
                    1. Firstly the only mention of cost that we have seen for the running of the service was during the press release, about a million Euro I seem to recall but is this really the full cost of the service to the taxpayer? For example the taxpayer is paying for a €12m aircraft to now be dedicated to the EAS. Based on a 20 year life span thats €600K per year for the aircraft alone. Crew salaries? Expenses? Flight costs? Flight costs to and from Bal every day? The true cost to the taxpayer is likely to be significantly higher then that already declared which would put it in the region of civil operators that were not allowed to tender. Now this isnt a major issue if no accommodations have been taken to make this cost saving but we dont know if they have because.....
                    The aircraft were purchased for military ops (with spare capacity) - no extra cost to the tax payer
                    No extra DF personnel have been recruited (just retasked / detached) - no extra cost to the tax payer (more allowances may be paid ?!, not sure)

                    The only additional DF associated cost is likely to be:
                    - maybe subsistance for a small number of personnel (likely to be minimal (if any) as they are based at a DF location)
                    - POL & extra maintainance due to the hours on task/rotations (hours on other ops may have been reduced to help pay for it)
                    - opportunity cost as aircraft and personnel are not available for other tasks

                    A civilian operator would have to take account of aircraft cost, recruiting pilots, rear & ground crew, etc etc and profit!

                    Does it not make more sense to use an existing asset at minimal extra cost of the taxpayer to conduct a trial rather than paying a contractor for something that may be never used?

                    Comment


                    • Originally posted by danno View Post
                      The status of the AC wrt JAR/HEMS etc will be exposed in the AAIU report into the 135 prang,if anything uncomfortable was arising in the investigation one would expect remedial action as appropriate to be taken in advance of final report.
                      Is AA covered/included in the AOC that CHC have.

                      Yes s92 has full IAA HEMS approval (first hems approval in Ireland) as part of there AOC.

                      That is all for now..
                      Last edited by SARMAN; 6 January 2013, 01:47.
                      Although I have walked in the valley of the shadows of death I fear no evil...

                      Comment


                      • Originally posted by Clacks View Post
                        Sorry about that but I assumed we were all aviators here. Emergency Aeromedical service which is in the service agreements for the coast guard since about 2008, HEMs, HSE and IAC you know, Advanced paramedic, dept of Defence, Irish Aviation Authority and national ambulance service.

                        Two things strike me. One is when 4 x 92s are in play Ireland will be well served. What the 61's have done for years and years is EAS work but labelled SAR... History here is not kind to the IAC on reliability so thats an issue should the trial extend past 12 months.

                        /
                        How was AA work done by CHC labelled as SAR when HEMS/AA is specifically excluded from the SAR framework unless connected to a marine/aviation incident?
                        In relation to reliability ,the most recent notorious scenario wrt to relibility arose from the CHC inability to fly the transplant patient from the NW to London

                        Comment


                        • Originally posted by SARMAN View Post
                          Lads & Ladies.
                          Lets get over the whole CG v AC thing and work along side each other. It would be better if both organisations worked side by side
                          Noble sentiments SARMAN and shared by many but made increasingly difficult by an expanionist IRCG agenda. I'd say the AC/DF and maybe even the DoD only beginning to wake up to that fact.

                          Comment


                          • Originally posted by danno View Post
                            How was AA work done by CHC labelled as SAR when HEMS/AA is specifically excluded from the SAR framework unless connected to a marine/aviation incident?
                            In relation to reliability ,the most recent notorious scenario wrt to relibility arose from the CHC inability to fly the transplant patient from the NW to London
                            Danno, now you are showing your lack of knowledge. Reliability & inability had nothing to do with that mess. Aircraft available but not tasked, crews cannot be held responsible for that. Sligo was available that night and could have travelled if the correct wheels had been put in motion in time. Interestingly the same patient could have travelled on 4 chartered flights that night and made the cut-off point.

                            This incident to me highlighted the lack of knowledge by controllers in a lot of organisations the lack of a few things, forward planning/contigiousy plans/accurate communications and knowledge of capabilitys. It was without doubt the biggest cluster f### we have seen in terms of PTS that we have seen. One organisation cannot be held responsible. Lots of people seem to think that the best place for a SAR aircraft to be is sitting waiting, I ask in this case or on similar cases is that what you want? Or is it a case by case and what is happening at the time?

                            That is all for tonight!!
                            Last edited by SARMAN; 6 January 2013, 02:52. Reason: Typo
                            Although I have walked in the valley of the shadows of death I fear no evil...

                            Comment


                            • Originally posted by Pure Hover View Post
                              Noble sentiments SARMAN and shared by many but made increasingly difficult by an expanionist IRCG agenda. I'd say the AC/DF and maybe even the DoD only beginning to wake up to that fact.
                              Maybe so but it does not stop the people on the ground working together. Some may have hidden agendas but unless there at the cold face, I think it does not matter what happens above.

                              Call me romantic but are we all not here for the same reason. Save/ treat/transport. And any other name you want to put on it.

                              That is all nite nite..
                              Although I have walked in the valley of the shadows of death I fear no evil...

                              Comment


                              • Originally posted by SARMAN View Post
                                Danno, now you are showing your lack of knowledge. Reliability & inability had nothing to do with that mess. Aircraft available but not tasked, crews cannot be held responsible for that. Sligo was available that night and could have travelled if the correct wheels had been put in motion in time. Interestingly the same patient could have travelled on 4 chartered flights that night and made the cut-off point.

                                This incident to me highlighted the lack of knowledge by controllers in a lot of organisations the lack of a few things, forward planning/contigiousy plans/accurate communications and knowledge of capabilitys. It was without doubt the biggest cluster f### we have seen in terms of PTS that we have seen. One organisation cannot be held responsible. Lots of people seem to think that the best place for a SAR aircraft to be is sitting waiting, I ask in this case or on similar cases is that what you want? Or is it a case by case and what is happening at the time?

                                That is all for tonight!!
                                Your points are correct,it was the CG SAR manager in Dublin who wrongly informed the requesting party that the Sligo heli was not available when it was ans also was unfamiliar with ambulance lingo.

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X