Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Air Corps air ambulance

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

  • PH, great to see some reasoned debate. It must be a new 'ology' or something.
    Glad to hear there won't be any additional costs but forgive me for being a little sceptical.
    As am I with the Air Corps cost figure. While this may be the 'additional' cost to the State it isnt a true reflection of the cost of the service. Bear in mind that this spare capacity in terms of personnel and equipment could quite as easily be reduced to save the State money so to say its free just because its there isnt true.

    are you refering to an AA or HEMS provision in the contract?
    The terms used in the tender were for the provision of assistance to the HSE in the retrival of casualties in remote (not hostile, thats SAR) areas. The only method to provide this under civil legislation is full HEMS which is in place with CHC as an operator and in place in Shannon on the S92 with 3 more bases to follow.

    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.
    Surely you mean....will go with the dedicated service whenever most suitable to the casualty? Anything else would be negligent. As I already stated, in many parts of the country a HEMS helicopter and crew will be able to respond and have the casualty en-route to hospital before the EAS machine even arrives. Are you really saying the HSE will leave casualties lying around just to use the EAS?

    Your point supports my original contention though that without EAS/HEMS activity it's hard to justify the massive spend on SAR.
    Except the spend never was just for SAR. Anybody who read the tender in any detail would have seen that. PS it was also in all the PR after the contract signing but that was probably just dismissed as spin. Well HEMS ops are no live in the country and here to stay.

    The success of the GASU is a testament to this where there's a mutual benefit to both Dept's.
    Tell me again what happened to the cheaper helicopter maintenance provided by the Don? Cost isnt everything, is it?

    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!
    But thats the point, I dont know. From my past experience the IAC had a lot to learn in terms of safety. Perhaps they have but without external auditing to provide that assurance we only have the word of individuals within an organisation that stands to lose from finding failure with itself. Besides, if the IAC now operate so closely to JAR-Ops then what exactly is the issue with allowing external regulation and oversight of this part of the operation? If anything a reluctance to do so would beg more questions then it answers.

    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".
    Sorry but thats not oversight. Oversight is a continual assessment of standards within an organisation. What currently happens is no more then closing the door after the horse has bolted...and then leaving without locking the door!!

    Similarly the IAA are not interested in that they don't see it as a civil operation
    So, have the IAA been approached and asked if the operation (Not the operator) falls under civil or military regulations and they have said that it is a military operation or have the IAA even been approached. Big difference between asking the question / getting an answer and not asking the question in case the wrong answer comes back.
    Either way this is very likely to change with EASA when aviation regulations become European law and the IAA have no leeway at a National level. In this case the operation, not the operator, will determine the regulations to be followed. In this case the EAS operation can only be considered HEMS (A rose by any other name etc) and will require the following:
    Helicopters shall only be operated for the purpose of HEMS operations if the operator has been approved by the competent authority.
    (b) To obtain such approval by the competent authority, the operator shall:
    (1) operate in commercial air transport (CAT) and hold a CAT air operator certificate (AOC) in accordance with Part-OR; and
    (2) demonstrate to the competent authority compliance with the requirements contained in this Subpart.
    Military OPERATIONS are of course exempt but it does not exempt military OPERATORS to do civil OPERATIONS. There is absolutely no way that it could be argued that a dedicated EAS/HEMS/AA operation (Also interesting in terms of current FW AA ops), even if provided by the military, is a military operation and a very short court case by any civil operator would soon sort that one out. All this of course doesn't preclude the IAC from the operation but they will require an AOC and all of the cost, oversight and regulation that an AOC brings.

    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.
    Sorry PH but if the AC/DF/DoD havent woken up to the internal issues that have led to the loss of every civil based contract it ever held (to a supposedly more expensive competitor due to service issues) then pointing the finger outside isn't going to be very productive. I hope the IAC have turned a corner and hold this operation but blaming others for the IACs problems is futile. After all, even if the IRCG had expansionist agendas they couldn't have got very far without the IAC/DF/DoD giving them the room to do so.

    Danno:
    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?
    Have a read through this thread, its been done to death. CHC also have a full AOC for commercial air transport operations and as AA is a function of CAT operations the service is provided under this approval. HEMS is completely separate and requires a separate approval which CHC now also holds and operates. In short CHC can and do provide Commercial Air Transport, HEMS and SAR operations.
    Last edited by Tadpole; 6 January 2013, 12:38.

    Comment


    • Originally posted by Tadpole View Post
      PH, great to see some reasoned debate. It must be a new 'ology' or something.
      True - must be the New Year or something! See can I reply to at least some of your points

      The terms used in the tender were for the provision of assistance to the HSE in the retrival of casualties in remote (not hostile, thats SAR) areas. The only method to provide this under civil legislation is full HEMS which is in place with CHC as an operator and in place in Shannon on the S92 with 3 more bases to follow
      In fairness I think that was meant to cover things like Island Medevacs etc which are not exactly HEMS and as I said previously unless there's AP support on the heli it's not HEMS either. Could always be designated as a SAR anyway

      Surely you mean....will go with the dedicated service whenever most suitable to the casualty? Anything else would be negligent. As I already stated, in many parts of the country a HEMS helicopter and crew will be able to respond and have the casualty en-route to hospital before the EAS machine even arrives. Are you really saying the HSE will leave casualties lying around just to use the EAS?

      The reason they (HSE/NAS) will go with the dedicated service is that they have full control over it and more importantly it has AP support. Sure, there may be occasions when an IRCG a/c is a more suitable option depending on the clinical decision but a scoop and go is not always the best option for the casualty.


      Except the spend never was just for SAR. Anybody who read the tender in any detail would have seen that. PS it was also in all the PR after the contract signing but that was probably just dismissed as spin. Well HEMS ops are no live in the country and here to stay.
      The contract was always for SAR. Exapnding the roles maens that IRCG helis can easily be diverted away from their primary task. It not hard to envisage a scenario where a heli is not avail because it's on a HEMS or EAS mission. Not much point calling the Shannon a/c if someone is in difficulty in Sligo bay and the Sligo a/c is on a HEMS job in preference to the EAS heli. If the EAS heli is unavailable well that's different of course.


      If the IAC now operate so closely to JAR-Ops then what exactly is the issue with allowing external regulation and oversight of this part of the operation? If anything a reluctance to do so would beg more questions then it answers.
      Sorry but thats not oversight. Oversight is a continual assessment of standards within an organisation. What currently happens is no more then closing the door after the horse has bolted...and then leaving without locking the door!!
      Without appearing to seem flippant... I suppose the straight answer is that they don't have to. They have their own regulatory procedures. The reason I highlighted the AAIU issue is that being subject to an external investigation in the event of an incident brings it's own pressures to do it as good or better than anyone else.


      So, have the IAA been approached and asked if the operation (Not the operator) falls under civil or military regulations and they have said that it is a military operation or have the IAA even been approached. Big difference between asking the question / getting an answer and not asking the question in case the wrong answer comes back.
      Again why should the IAC approach the IAA? It would of course suit a lot of vested interests to see the AC pushed out of the operation over regulatory issues but several Gov't departments/agencies have been involved with the current set-up which seems to be working well. If somebody wishes to take a court case - let them do so. The Gov't decides what the AC do or don't do and if that involves the IAC getting a specifc AOC for a HEMS operation - so what!


      Sorry PH but if the AC/DF/DoD havent woken up to the internal issues that have led to the loss of every civil based contract it ever held (to a supposedly more expensive competitor due to service issues) then pointing the finger outside isn't going to be very productive. I hope the IAC have turned a corner and hold this operation but blaming others for the IACs problems is futile. After all, even if the IRCG had expansionist agendas they couldn't have got very far without the IAC/DF/DoD giving them the room to do so.
      Not blamimg anyone at all and It seems the AC has made significant strides with its new fleet. However the AC were restricted by the DoD from competing for the last SAR contract and progressively pushed out of operations over the years with a/c size and suitability being the dominant factor (Shannon & Dublin as examples). Anyway the State (or the last incompetant Gov't) have only themselves to blame for signing such a massively expensive OTT contract. Commercial concerns are again to the fore pushing the agenda. Just wondering if it's the way the IRCG want to go.


      My next post is going to be much shorter
      Last edited by Pure Hover; 6 January 2013, 18:12.

      Comment


      • So, in a nutshell the IAA, despite you saying they were happy, were never actually approached for their opinion on this operation (I imagine that is because it could only have one outcome) and the IAC have no intention of bringing in external regulation or oversight because 'they dont have to'.

        It strikes me as funny (not ha ha) that you claim that the IAC operate civil operations on a par with JAR Ops yet don't even ask the countries authority on the subject for it's opinion and disregard the greatest safety barrier in aviation, external oversight and control. Instead these operations are regulated and overseen by personnel that have zero experience in the practical application of the regulations (none have any civil operational or management experience) and the regulators are free to 'read into' the regulations to suit the operator with no external oversight. I would actually say it's bizarre but unfortunately it seems more like 'business as usual'.

        Ps: Regulation isn't for the exclusion of operators it's for the safety of crews, patients and people on the ground. If operators are excluded then it's because they cannot fulfil the requirements not because somebody somewhere doesn't like them. If you feel regulation would exclude the IAC then by default you also feel that the IAC either do not or cannot fulfil the requirements of the regulations.
        Last edited by Tadpole; 6 January 2013, 20:06.

        Comment


        • Maybe they (IAA) were or weren't approached but I do know they've had no formal involvement. As I said it's viewed as a military operation from a military installation. Certainly doesn't mean the operation is any less safe much as you'd like to claim otherwise. In terms of regulation my point was that others would seek to use regulation to exclude the AC rather than the AC who do and can fulfill the requirements of the regulation but are not legally obliged to do so.

          The IAC developed an NVG operational capability from scratch with plenty of very credible external oversight and without IAA regulation either. Does this mean it's any less safe either?

          And for "personnel that have zero experience in the practical application of the regulations" ex-Donners seem to do ok snapping up some of the senior regulatory positions in the IAA and closely associated AAIU.

          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. 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......
            Incorrect,the report into the transport fiasco clearly states the only SLA ,as of 2011,between the CG and HSE was for Marine /SAR ops.

            In relation to accreditation it is being advanced here that the AC are abusing thier military status to avoid IAA oversight,the above passage shows that the CG have been hiding behind their "rescue" status to evade IAA oversight regarding the S61s.
            The assertion that the AC is unreliable rings hollow in the face of the senior CG SAR manager refusing to accept the transplant op and giving false info .The transplant organisers were forced to contact the Dierector of the CG who was at home off duty by phone and his direct intervention got the CG to accept the mission (havent heard of the GOC AC being rung up lately to overule the D/O.
            What made this thread topical again was the spurious data produced by the CG which we now have learned differs from the CHC stats,the public/taxpayers are being taken for a ride by this blatant media manipulation.

            Comment


            • Ogh what's that phrase again 'u/s on startup' ie no blades on heli!!

              Comment


              • Tell me PH, you say that this is viewed as a military operation, by who exactly? The military? Because it seems very clear that a medical operation paid for by a civil Dept, staffed partly by civilians, serving injured civilians in civilian circumstances and recovering said civilians to civilian medical facilities is anything but military.

                I also never claimed the operation isn't safe, those are your words. I did however say that the IAC claiming to operate to civil regulations without any kind of external oversight is both unverifiable negates one of the biggest safety checks available in aviation. However, what really puzzles me is that the IAC with this ability to operate to civil standards completely shun the regulatory system. Surely it would be better to allow external oversight for everybodies safety, no?

                You also contest that some would use regulation to kick the IAC out of operations. Are these individuals making up the regulations just to kick the IAC out? Funny I thought EU aviation legislation was now enacted by the European court.....does the IRCG expansionism know no bounds!
                Face it, regulation is a line in the sand for everybodies protection. If you meet the criteria you can play in the sand pit if you don't you can't. This doesn't just effect the IAC you know but also the majority of civil operators in Ireland. I don't hear them saying people are using regulation tokeep them out of operations, they either upgrade and comply with regs or they don't do the op, no weeping and gnashing of teeth.

                As for the NVG operation I have no probs with how the IAC operate BUT again if there are to be utilised on civil missions then they need to be operated in line with civil regulations.

                WRT the last paragraph did you actually type that with a straight face? Just wondering.

                Danno, all Clacks paragraph shows is a lack of knowledge. The IRCG did indeed provide EAS type operations from 2008 onwards but under strict guidelines from the IAA. Only operations falling within SAR, AA or CAT were allowed and the delineation was made for each by the authority. Anything in the HEMS arena could not be fulfilled until the S92 went live in July.

                Comment


                • It shouldn't matter if it is a military or civil operation with regard to safety.

                  While there is a risk in aviation, with extra risk in military ops due to what they train to do, it must be kept to the minimal.

                  They can operate in civilian airspace and civilians on the ground could be effected.

                  One wonders how the RAF is audited?

                  Comment


                  • Dev. I dont think you can compare like with like there. have a look at the Finnish border guard model as a more realistic similar organisation. They fly to civil rules and are audited by their aviation authority but their General (in consultation with their aviation authority) can authorise exemptions. So they get all the certification, maintenance, safety and auditing benefits but can have a reasonable control on their flexibility within reason.

                    Comment


                    • Originally posted by Clacks View Post
                      Dev. I dont think you can compare like with like there. have a look at the Finnish border guard model as a more realistic similar organisation. They fly to civil rules and are audited by their aviation authority but their General (in consultation with their aviation authority) can authorise exemptions. So they get all the certification, maintenance, safety and auditing benefits but can have a reasonable control on their flexibility within reason.
                      What about the RAF & RN SAR squadrons?

                      Comment


                      • There's a lot of love in this room :D

                        Time will tell all. Fast forward to next year, 4 all weather S 92's, available 24/7/365 with hems approval and Paramedic crews. There will be plenty of work for them on and offshore. We'll see what happens. Lots of opinions here but just as many agendas. I know what I believe, I've been on both sides of this and I do think that allows me to have a balanced view on things. I believe in the service I am in now, it's not perfect but it's not far off it. I don't think one service needs to put the other one down here, especially as we're only arguing amongst ourselves. Like someone said earlier it doesn't matter what colour the airframe is as long as one arrives where and when it's needed.
                        I'd be more worried about getting the Aeronautical coordination centre running smoothly and get rid of the delays in tasking the closest and most appropriate resource. Not all patients need an AP, and defo not at the expense of a thirty minute delay, they need advanced care. The sort of care only a hospital can deliver. It's the patient that matters at the end of the day.
                        Anyway happy new year to all safe flying MB

                        Comment


                        • Originally posted by Meatbomb View Post
                          Like someone said earlier it doesn't matter what colour the airframe is as long as one arrives where and when it's needed.
                          +1....... but while providing the taxpayers with good VFM

                          Comment


                          • Meatbomb what 'organisation' are you talking, do you not work for CHC, a very large company that's aim is to make money!

                            Comment


                            • Originally posted by DeV View Post
                              +1....... but while providing the taxpayers with good VFM
                              Well if its value for money you want (and I know we all do) start at the top, government buildings and work your way down. MB

                              Comment


                              • cant compare the IAC with the size and support capacity of the RAF or RN???


                                Originally posted by DeV View Post
                                What about the RAF & RN SAR squadrons?

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X