Homonucleus, you are in danger of making yourself look a prat. As a "prehospital care practitioner", you ought to know better.
Let's look at a few of the things that we do know. I won't call them facts, as we weren't there and none of us know - that includes you. Just because you think something is true, doesn't make it so.
- as land based assets were also on scene (read the article!), it seems likely to me that this was a crew request for aircraft assistance. Not only does the article say that there were three assets on scene, the second pic shows guys in green: almost certainly ambulance techs or paramedics
- the fact that the patient was airlifted to Morriston would indicate that the people on the ground (air and land) decided that this was the best option for the patient.
I'm sure there's a valid point somewhere in your arguments, but for the life of me, I cannot see it.
And on a wider note, if you really think that Air Ambulances are any use in meeting government response targets, you need to get out more. An air ambulance will almost always take longer to get to scene than a land-based asset: just getting the aircraft airborne takes at least 3 minutes.