trying
Dear Gemini Twin,
I am trying to understand the logic of your argument. Let me put in my thoughts and see what you think.
If someone in my family was injured etc and needed transport to a higher level of care and the medical experts first best choice was a helicopter, then that is what I would choose. If for any reason the helicopter could not complete the transport, I hope to goodness the medical people would put my loved one in an ambulance if they felt that the time spent in the ambulance was acceptable to the medical condition of their patient.
Yes, the people involved in the particular situations you cite were eventually transported by ground. Why wouldn't they be? That was the next best option.
I get a sense that your argument is that if there is ground transport then that should be the first option taken in any situation. In many regions of the country where I have flown EMS, the time it would take to ground transport would be 3-5 hours or more depending on traffic while the helo can make the trip in one. For example take a look at the drive from Parker or Lake Havasu City, Arizona to either Phoenix or Vegas. Yes there is risk, but hundreds and probably thousands of flights over these particular routes have been flown over many years, both day and night with great success. There are many areas of the U.S. where helo transport makes absolutely the best choice for the welfare of the patient when time is critical.
Is there room for improvement? Of course. Ground transport should be considered as the best alternative when time is not critical. In medicine, time is nearly always a crucial factor when considering transferring a patient to a higher level of care.
Cheers