Its the same reason as the current trend for larger helicopters and 2 pilot operation (and the subsequent increase in wages).
The charities are raising more money than the operations side can spend. They are limited to what they can bank, so there comes a point when a big expenditure is forced upon them by the charities commission, whether it is needed or not.
Perhaps they could put their excesses in to support the NHS while it is 'in crisis'. What would the donating public say if they realised that money was being spent just for the sake of it - very short-sighted planning.
you simply cannot say "enough .... stop fundraising for six months please..." it just does not work like that
Exactly right - look at the RLNI. They raised £184M in 2014, £183M in 2015 and claim '442 lives saved' yet are not being deemed as anything other than a professional and invaluable resource, rightly so! Braver folk than I. The rate at which they buy new gear for their volunteers and bases is astonishing, because they absolutely CANNOT stop fundraising. By very rough comparison I'd
guess that in total all HEMS charities across the UK combined probably raise £100M, and attend something in the order of 15-20,000 people with potentially life-changing consequences.
I hate to think what one Eurofighter costs the tax payers, involuntarily, or how many lives it truly makes a positive difference to each year.
Can we not agree that this is a positive thing for our industry?
Multi-pilot money well spent? Yes, if the charities want to do 24hr ad-hoc landings on NVG I'd argue it is in peoples interest to have a second pilot up front. With that comes a requirement to facilitate longer legs with reduced fuel options at night - larger aircraft. Is 24hr worth it? Well the proven answer is yes, to industry it employs more pilots, to patients it makes a difference to the long-term outcome of more lives when they need help, and to those donating it dilutes the fixed costs of overheads too. For a 24hr charity in the south (info all publicly available), spending went up from circa 5M to 6M a year (20%), and the number of treated patients went up by 30-33% improving the efficiency of charity spending per patient.
I sense sour grapes among some, but this small part of the industry is seemingly financially secure (for now), offering growth in employment, offering low-time co-pilots a route into twin-land with valuable hems experience, investing in latest technology aircraft, NVG experience etc - whats to complain about. And the population cost per head equates to around £1.50/year (but no-one is forced to pay). Seriously...
Would you still be grumbling if your son/daughter/sister/wife was in an accident, and had a better long-term prognosis after being treated by a HEMS team, at zero cost to you or the tax payer? And a very small cost to those who are choosing to donate. Does it occur to you that the significant donations generated through legacies are likely from those who have witnessed first hand the value they bring?
I have no comment on the specific value of the centre of excellence in Teeside, but feel compelled to stand up to those who seemingly devalue the sector as a whole.