UK Coast Guard S92s unable to use some hospital helipads
Thread Starter
Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: Surrey, UK
Age: 70
Posts: 78
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
UK Coast Guard S92s unable to use some hospital helipads
This may be a non-story but today's Times (unable to post link due to pay firewall) reports that there is growing concern that the new S92 is unable to use some elevated hospital helipads that were fine for the Sea King. The DfT have apparently denied "that it had blundered" by buying helicopters that cannot land on these helipads. Apparently the issue was first raised by Royal Victoria Hospital in Newcastle. A Bristow spokesperson says they "are facing many legacy issues" since privatisation! I wonder what they are?
Even the Sea-Kings couldn't use some helipads such as UHW in Cardiff. At the RVI they're lucky in having a good field very close to the hospital. However generally speaking it is a big deal - the amount of faff and time involved in transferring a patient from hospital to ambulance to a sports field to a helicopter often wholly negates the utility of the helicopter, in my view.
Ecce Homo! Loquitur...
Hmmmmm
http://www.newcastle-hospitals.org.u..._-_tabled.docx
"In March 2013 the Department for Transport announced that it had signed a contract with Bristow Helicopters Ltd to provide search and rescue helicopter services in the UK with operations commencing progressively from 2015. The new service is expected to be fully operational across the United Kingdom by Summer 2017 and will use Agusta Westland AW189 and Sikorsky S-92 based at ten locations around the UK.
The result in this change of operation of the Coastguard Search and Rescue (SAR) service has created a situation whereby a SAR Sikorsky S-92 helicopter cannot land on the heliport at the RVI. Since the introduction of Bristow’s this is the aircraft which has responded to the RVI using the secondary landing site on Castle Leazes Moor.
Concern was raised as soon as this became apparent and enquiries were made to establish a way forward and reinstate the heliport to receive these aircraft. The philosophy has always been to deliver a stabilised patient to the A&E department as quickly as possible to greatly increase the chance of survival in extreme circumstances.
In order to receive a Sikorsky S92 the specification of this would need to be 33 metres in diameter with a load capacity of 12 ton. The current weight limit is 9.7 ton and the aircraft diameter is 29 metres.
Bristow’s have confirmed that they will not use the heliport until there is alleviation in the current specifications. This has been provided in the past where the S92 replaced the Sea King flying into helidecks on offshore facilities. This was achieved by using a consultant, Consultavia to carry out the risk assessment. This risk assessment has been accepted by the Health and Safety Executive for the use helidecks aboard offshore installations.
This overall scenario was put to the Civil Aviation Authority are currently reviewing hospital heliports. The relevant document is CAP 1264 (Civil Aviation Publication on Air Ambulance Operations) which states “the safety of helicopter operations is clearly paramount to any design for an HLS at a hospital and there can be no alleviations from the regulations due to the emergency nature of an operation”.
Communication has been followed through with both Bristow’s and the CAA but as yet there has been no positive developments as such in moving matters forward. There have also been meetings with Newcastle International Airport from whom we contract the RVI heliport safety. Richard Knight, Operations Director at Newcastle International Airport has taken up the case with Bristow’s but we are still awaiting a response to be in a position where we can confirm that the Sikorsky will land at the RVI sometime in the future."...........
http://www.newcastle-hospitals.org.u..._-_tabled.docx
"In March 2013 the Department for Transport announced that it had signed a contract with Bristow Helicopters Ltd to provide search and rescue helicopter services in the UK with operations commencing progressively from 2015. The new service is expected to be fully operational across the United Kingdom by Summer 2017 and will use Agusta Westland AW189 and Sikorsky S-92 based at ten locations around the UK.
The result in this change of operation of the Coastguard Search and Rescue (SAR) service has created a situation whereby a SAR Sikorsky S-92 helicopter cannot land on the heliport at the RVI. Since the introduction of Bristow’s this is the aircraft which has responded to the RVI using the secondary landing site on Castle Leazes Moor.
Concern was raised as soon as this became apparent and enquiries were made to establish a way forward and reinstate the heliport to receive these aircraft. The philosophy has always been to deliver a stabilised patient to the A&E department as quickly as possible to greatly increase the chance of survival in extreme circumstances.
In order to receive a Sikorsky S92 the specification of this would need to be 33 metres in diameter with a load capacity of 12 ton. The current weight limit is 9.7 ton and the aircraft diameter is 29 metres.
Bristow’s have confirmed that they will not use the heliport until there is alleviation in the current specifications. This has been provided in the past where the S92 replaced the Sea King flying into helidecks on offshore facilities. This was achieved by using a consultant, Consultavia to carry out the risk assessment. This risk assessment has been accepted by the Health and Safety Executive for the use helidecks aboard offshore installations.
This overall scenario was put to the Civil Aviation Authority are currently reviewing hospital heliports. The relevant document is CAP 1264 (Civil Aviation Publication on Air Ambulance Operations) which states “the safety of helicopter operations is clearly paramount to any design for an HLS at a hospital and there can be no alleviations from the regulations due to the emergency nature of an operation”.
Communication has been followed through with both Bristow’s and the CAA but as yet there has been no positive developments as such in moving matters forward. There have also been meetings with Newcastle International Airport from whom we contract the RVI heliport safety. Richard Knight, Operations Director at Newcastle International Airport has taken up the case with Bristow’s but we are still awaiting a response to be in a position where we can confirm that the Sikorsky will land at the RVI sometime in the future."...........
Project Management 101 - keep your IDDs up to date. If this has been done, then what was put in the bid, "compliant" or "non-compliant"? Or was a waiver granted against certain hospitals?
Avoid imitations
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Wandering the FIR and cyberspace often at highly unsociable times
Posts: 14,573
Received 422 Likes
on
222 Posts
Strange that Bristow didn't mention this slight inconvenience until after the contract was awarded...
ShyTorque
One has to ask what the Invitation to Tender said. Such a glaring omission (for example, I mentioned IDD's which are a mandated no-brainer, but habitually ignored) almost certainly prompted a clarification question. If MoD didn't answer properly, the bidder would be entitled to omit it from their bid. They MAY have asked the programme manager if they should include it as an option, but the sensible advice would have been, be wary, Commercial may see you as a smart arse and black ball you. This is common place. There is a moral obligation to seek clarification, but at the first hint of MoD reacting badly, you walk away and let them sink. I can offer a simple, real example. In 2007 the Nimrod IPT issued an ITT for an R&D contract. A bidder wrote to them and pointed out the spec they were asking for was obsolete, and another IPT had a better spec in-service, and MoD owned the IPR. Why not just amend the current support contract to buy a few more for Nimrod? Instead of being grateful, and recognising the bidder was giving work away, the Nimrod Commercial Manager formally complained to the company MD and binned their bid. In such circumstances, companies soon learn. If MoD won't listen, you simply answer the exam question. Not all MoD teams are the same, but this bid has a history. Trying to be fair to both sides!
One has to ask what the Invitation to Tender said. Such a glaring omission (for example, I mentioned IDD's which are a mandated no-brainer, but habitually ignored) almost certainly prompted a clarification question. If MoD didn't answer properly, the bidder would be entitled to omit it from their bid. They MAY have asked the programme manager if they should include it as an option, but the sensible advice would have been, be wary, Commercial may see you as a smart arse and black ball you. This is common place. There is a moral obligation to seek clarification, but at the first hint of MoD reacting badly, you walk away and let them sink. I can offer a simple, real example. In 2007 the Nimrod IPT issued an ITT for an R&D contract. A bidder wrote to them and pointed out the spec they were asking for was obsolete, and another IPT had a better spec in-service, and MoD owned the IPR. Why not just amend the current support contract to buy a few more for Nimrod? Instead of being grateful, and recognising the bidder was giving work away, the Nimrod Commercial Manager formally complained to the company MD and binned their bid. In such circumstances, companies soon learn. If MoD won't listen, you simply answer the exam question. Not all MoD teams are the same, but this bid has a history. Trying to be fair to both sides!
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: S of 55N
Posts: 360
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I was one of the military reviewers of this ITT which, as Tucumseh says, has history. The issue of mil v CAA regs for landing at hospital helipads was raised, as were a number of other limitations. They were ignored as it had already been decided that such inconveniences would not be allowed to prejudice the predetermined outcome.
Sun.
Sun.
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: London, New York, Paris, Moscow.
Posts: 3,632
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
And some of those who contribute on this forum still cannot understand why Corbyn will be the next Prime Minister unless UKIP gets its act together (which seems highly unlikely )
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: S of 55N
Posts: 360
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
And some of those who contribute on this forum still cannot understand why Corbyn will be the next Prime Minister unless UKIP gets its act together (which seems highly unlikely )
Sun Who
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: S of 55N
Posts: 360
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Airpolice,
That may well be what he meant. What I don't understand is how his post flowed from the topic under discussion. Unless I've missed something, it's a bloomin' big leap from SAR helipad limitations to comrade Corbyn. You can't just randomly inject an opinion into an un-related conversation.
Last on this from me.
Sun.
That may well be what he meant. What I don't understand is how his post flowed from the topic under discussion. Unless I've missed something, it's a bloomin' big leap from SAR helipad limitations to comrade Corbyn. You can't just randomly inject an opinion into an un-related conversation.
Last on this from me.
Sun.
In order to receive a Sikorsky S92 the specification of this would need to be 33 metres in diameter with a load capacity of 12 ton. The current weight limit is 9.7 ton and the aircraft diameter is 29 metres.
But who will pay for that upgrade? That is the issue behind this.
The NHS built their HLS to cope with air ambulance not SAR since that is their primary 'customer' so why should they pay extra to accommodate occasional visits from SAR?
Maybe they need 189s all round if this is going to be a big issue. Not that I think many driving the S-92 are going to want to trade-down to the Leonardo product
The NHS built their HLS to cope with air ambulance not SAR since that is their primary 'customer' so why should they pay extra to accommodate occasional visits from SAR?
Maybe they need 189s all round if this is going to be a big issue. Not that I think many driving the S-92 are going to want to trade-down to the Leonardo product
This is an old old issue and not just resulting from the recent adoption of a 12 tonne aircraft across the country. Even in Scotland where some helicopters are part of the NHS (and the S-92 has been in SAR service for around for 9 years), stupid half-baked decisions that are inconsistent with patient safety are made about Helicopter Landing Sites.
The Fort William situation is one of the most ridiculous since SAR and air ambulance helicopters are very regular visitors to the area and Belford Hospital is vital to trauma care in a large part of the West Highlands. Last I heard, plans for a replacement hospital, at a site that would in many ways be ideal for helicopters, were said to NOT include a HLS. Hopefully, during the years that it will take for the new hospital to become a reality, somebody will get a grip.
The Fort William situation is one of the most ridiculous since SAR and air ambulance helicopters are very regular visitors to the area and Belford Hospital is vital to trauma care in a large part of the West Highlands. Last I heard, plans for a replacement hospital, at a site that would in many ways be ideal for helicopters, were said to NOT include a HLS. Hopefully, during the years that it will take for the new hospital to become a reality, somebody will get a grip.
Join Date: Aug 2000
Location: Liverpool based Geordie, so calm down, calm down kidda!!
Age: 60
Posts: 2,051
Likes: 0
Received 17 Likes
on
6 Posts
why not convert part of the car park to a landing site. How hard could it be???
As mentioned, £5 for 4 hours, times 100 cars soon adds up
Arrowe Park Hospital on the wirral used to have a helipad. Now its a car park.
When you are a hospital Chief Executive who's budget is being cut to the bone, you look to see where you can bring cash in.
As mentioned, £5 for 4 hours, times 100 cars soon adds up
Arrowe Park Hospital on the wirral used to have a helipad. Now its a car park.
When you are a hospital Chief Executive who's budget is being cut to the bone, you look to see where you can bring cash in.