Gymble,
Continually asking for non existant data to support NVG is the usual tactic of the naysayers.
Who keeps statistics on lives that would have been saved if .... xxx..... had been used? (insert whatever bit of equipment you are trying to justify). The truth is that no one keeps stats on how many times the aircraft was saved because XXX was fitted. When was the last time you heard how many lives were saved because we have IFR capability in helicopters? How can we keep such statistics for NVG if people doing the job are not qulaified on them and are therefore unable to asses the impact?
How about reversing your rhetoric:
1. Using statistics, please justify why your organisation does not wish to provide safety equipment in service for more than 35 years.
2. using statistics, please show the 30 plus (and growing month by month) civil operators currently using NVG on EMS/SAR in the US that they are completely mad for spending so much money? Then include the hundreds of public use operators. Then the 4 NZ operators. Then the Swiss, Canadians, Norwegians, etc, etc.
3. Please justify why all those operators are so wrong, and you are so right. With cold hard facts of course.
What you are looking for is some sort of SUBJECTIVE reason to adopt NVG. Well, the recent FAA sponsored task force looking at helicopter accidents noted the following common thread amongst night EMS accidents:
A. All fatal accidents involved VFR aircraft at night.
B. None were accredited by the Comission on Accreditation of Medical Transport Systems, a body dedicted to assisting EMS operators to offer a quality system.
C. None were using NVG or other NVIS.
Or, maybe you are looking for economic return because safety is just a secondary concern. How about NVG reducing the time taken on EACH night mission where VFR is used? NVG arrivals to an accident site can be literally 20 minutes quicker. Each visual approach will shave minutes off operating times.
Lastly, you ask two crucial questions and here is what I think:
Yes, we will able to do current work more safely.
Yes, we will be able to save more lives than we currently do, BUT not because of reduced weather. You may notice that no where in the world (yet) are night weather minimas lowered for NVG. NVG will save more lives in three ways:
1. Allow rescue in more difficult terrain than is currently safe with a nitesun,
2. Allow more timely rescue and therefore reduce medical intervention time due to the ability to arrive quicker on scene, and search areas with ease,
3. Reduce the incidence of CFIT; our industry's biggest killer.
But you know what really gets forgotten? It's the poor bastard that gets injured in a remote area and lies there for hours in agony waiting for medical help while we stuff around doing exhaustive map recces, approach plans, calculating descent LSALTS, destination LSALTs, etc, etc to facilitate nitesun ops, only to find we can only land kms away and have to proceed on foot instead of launching with a NVG visual recce and landing right next to him. Stats? That happened last week in Sydney. Well over 4 hours to get help to him: would have been 1 hour with NVG.
If ever faced in with a similar situation, lets hope your mother, father, partner, son, daughter, etc understands your needs for data and cold disspassionate discussion.