gymble,
your points are well made, and if you have been reading my previous posts on Dcotors V Paramedics and the Wollongong saga, you will have noted that I continually mention that the EMS stuff, like all other businesses, is a client driven one. Therefore, where there is a perception that things should be run differently, then the only option is to educate the client as to why it should be. If you fail to convince the client, you get that. Move on, try a different tack, but remember you are there to do a client's bidding.
Here is a difference though. The real strength of community based EMS providors is that they are not always reliant upon the client to institute change and equipment improvements. As the aviation expertise lies with the operator, they can upgrade equipment, standards, SOPs largely independant of having to educate the client on why they should provide an increase in funding.
Unlike the commercial providers.
Once the new equipment is in service, the client education process can now be so much simpler because they can be given actual demonstrations, not just subjective musings - thus more easily overcoming the problems you have mentioned above.
We shouldn't forget that the introduction of helicopter EMS was not "funded by the client". The client only came to the party after practical demonstrations of the efficacy of the service. Same with the introduction of twin engine, night capabilities, and IFR. I suggest that we would have been very very lucky to have achieved any of this by commercial operators trying to educate the client into providing funds. And thus it will probably be with NVG.
Lastly, the other "client" the community providers have is the community. They provide funding, and therefore the community providors have a duty to those clients too. How that duty is undertaken is to always strive to improve services back to the community, so that whilst your belief that the health department does not care that we cannot launch on a night job (though I strongly disagree) it is the "duty" of the community provider to find a way to help (whilst safely protecting the lives and equipment the community have given them, of course).
You said;
It is the client that must determine if NVGs represent value for money not you as a line pilot.
Well, I believe in the community provider's case, you are wrong. They rely on the line pilots, crewman, management, anybody, to utilise the funds they give to provide the best possible outcome to the public. And I think the majority of us would agree that that would be right up the NVG alley.
Your thoughts that:
It is clear that you wish to be able to perform what you see as your role better. And NVGs may be able to help. This is admirable. But this is your want. This is not necessarily the view of the client.
Not true. You would be suprised at the movement within the NSW "client" towards adopting NVG. Producing the funding is another thing, but like IFR and twins, eventually they will be able to evaluate a working model, and re evaluate funding from there.
It is distressing that you are deaf to the safety drum. Are you sure that's what you meant?
Devil: well said.
tc: sounds like we may be winning you over.