Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Air Corps air ambulance

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

  • #61
    Why not allow St Johns ambulance or the Knights of Malta etc to operate a few helicopters and let them do the air ambulalce.

    Comment


    • #62
      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.

      Comment


      • #63
        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

        Comment


        • #64
          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.

          Comment


          • #65
            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.


            Catch-22 says they have a right to do anything we can't stop them from doing.

            Comment


            • #66
              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.

              Comment


              • #67
                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.

                Comment


                • #68
                  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.

                  Comment


                  • #69
                    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.

                    Comment


                    • #70
                      [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

                      Comment


                      • #71
                        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)

                        Comment


                        • #72
                          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

                          Comment


                          • #73
                            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?

                            Comment


                            • #74
                              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.

                              Comment


                              • #75
                                c.1998

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X