Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Air Corps air ambulance

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

  • I really hate to say this because it isn't fair on the crews playing a blinder but it seems like EAS' main priority is to preserve itself. I put that squarely at the feet of EAS and HSE management.

    Comment


    • Originally posted by Meatbomb View Post
      Hems is included in the contract
      That's what I was eluding to!

      [QUOTE=Meatbomb;397503]
      Originally posted by Pure Hover View Post

      The EAS a/c is it? The CG contract has a monthly allocation of hours. These hours are flown regardless, training, Sar or hems.
      So do I have this right (I will over simply):
      Say the monthly allocation is 5 hours (an easy to work out number)

      (a) 0 hours flown in the month, it's the last day of the month, so a/c takes off at 1600 and does 5 hrs training, call that comes in at 2200, no hours, no mission?

      (b) 5 hours of missions flown in the first week, no more flying?

      Comment


      • Allow me to adjust your figure say your average is 30 hrs a month, you plan to fly an hour a day. If you get towards the end of the month and you get a run of calls that take you to 32 hrs that's ok, it's worked out annually as far as I know. If the hours fall short of 30 then the CG saves money. It's that simple.

        Comment


        • Interesting that the dialogue has raised the possibility of the SAR contract being a SAR & HEMS contract but this isn't correct as otherwise they'd be no need for a dedicated EAS as the S92's could do everything. However this is clearly not the case and having a HEMS clearance and providing a contractual service are not the same thing. If there are a monthly allocation of hours for SAR , training etc and these hours are eaten up by HSE taskings then they're obviously won't be enough for other stuff and hence the likely extra invoices. After all it's just business!

          Comment


          • That's nice that you find interesting but have a wee look at the big picture. 4 x 24hr hems approves a/c, crewed by Paramedics, equipment selected by the HSE. Tetra fitted to each a/c with a plan for a CG/NACC talk group.
            Why would the CG support their service being HEMS approved if it didn't want to share the resource?
            Sar doesn't involve load lifting but that's included. I even saw something on the CG Facebook page with NVG'S being used, it seems like things are changing and the CG want to have a flexible resource that can offer value for the tax payers. Do you still find it interesting?

            Comment


            • Still bleating on about additional costs PH but no comment on the actual cost of the EAS post the 135 being replaced by a 139. Pot and kettle old chap. At least the actual CG costs are available for the public to make their own mind up.

              Comment


              • Interesting in a half-raised eyebrow sort of way but you're missing my main point in that the S92's were contracted for SAR not HEMS and efforts to morph the current contract/service into both will cost substantially more.

                Comment


                • Wrong again PH. Just because you didn't know doesn't make it a new development. The Shannon base has been operating hems missions for over a year, the planning for that took place almost 2 years before that.

                  It's my opinion you wish to deflect on the question raised by tadpole on the costings for the 139 operation. I think that is clarification enough that the costings pushed out are inaccurate.

                  Comment


                  • MB I guess you're not missing my point any more but just ignoring it but hey that's ok too. I'm stating that the CHC contract is for SAR and I 'm not disputing the fact that IRCG helicopters can and do complete HEMS missions but they 're not contracted for a dedicated HEMS - that's the difference.

                    As for the 139 stats - just because TP says they're inaccurate doesn't necessarily mean they are. If they're official DoD figures so someone has to be able to stand over them.

                    Comment


                    • Comment


                      • No I'm not missing your point, it is a Sar and hems service, not dedicated hems, I don't remember anyone saying that it was or wants to be. I think we're all kinda on the same page here, we want a hems service in the country. It really doesn't matter who does it. The choice is to use existing resources in a multi role or pay for another operator to operate a dedicated hems service, time will tell.

                        As for costings, we all know a 135 costs less to operate than a 139, the only way a balance sheet shows operating costs as being the same is if the figures are BS. I have no issue discussing costs of CG contract(s) the figures are there in black and white. We're all professionals and all services are operated to a budget at some level even the DF / AC.
                        We all pay tax so we all pay for the services that were discussing here but let's not hide from the truth. Joe public think a helicopter is a helicopter and they cost the same to operate but we know that's not the case.
                        It's not really a big deal, the trial is to determine the need for a hems service, not how much it's costing (it's just us here crying about these things!)

                        Comment


                        • Maybe you can tell us where we can find the CHC contact?

                          Comment


                          • Originally posted by Happyman View Post
                            Maybe you can tell us where we can find the CHC contact?
                            Well Happyman, I assume it's the Irish Coast Guard contract your referring to so check this out, published first in 2010:





                            Click the 'full notice text' tab

                            Still waiting to hear your examples of when CG a/c "declared 100% serviceability until called then go u/s on start"
                            No doubt you have no substance to your wild accusations as usual.
                            Last edited by Meatbomb; 28 June 2013, 09:35.

                            Comment


                            • As for the 139 stats - just because TP says they're inaccurate doesn't necessarily mean they are. If they're official DoD figures so someone has to be able to stand over them.
                              What stats PH. The only figure EVER released by either department for this operation was a 'wet finger in the air' €1m before the op even started. This was based on a 135 operating an as yet unknown number of flights per year. Now the only way that it can still be a €1m charge to the HSE is if:

                              1. The 135 costs the same to operate as the 139 which, even with very sharp pencils, just arent anywhere close.
                              2. The expected number of calls flown by the 139 is substantially LESS then that at first envisaged when the 135 operation was costed.
                              3. The HSE are still only paying €1m and the DF are footing the additional cost of the operation with a 139 which is being kept very quiet and out of the public domain for very obvious reasons.

                              Now, as the following have been dealt with:
                              1. CG Contract for HEMS
                              2. CG Capability for HEMS
                              3. CG additional costs
                              4. AP requirements on scene

                              Dont you think the service should be about the patient and their best outcome?
                              Last edited by Tadpole; 28 June 2013, 09:59.

                              Comment


                              • Priority 1 - EAS survival
                                Priority 2 - Patients best interests

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X