Great North Air Ambulance pair injured in microlight accident

[ppheli]

See article in the Northern Echo (http://www.thisisthenortheast.co.uk/display.var.1933416.0.air_rescue_pair_in_microlight_horror.p hp). Both airlifted from the scene, one by GNAA colleagues and one by Northumbria Police.

[TorqueOfTheDevil]

Why send two small helicopters to lift one casualty each, thereby tying up two assets, when you could use one large one which is based nearby and could easily take both at once? Doesn't seem like the best use of the available assets.

[Bertie Thruster]

Increased immediate care for each casualty?

I'm only guessing but wouldn't there have been 2 immediate care medics on each 'small' helicopter, both able to attend to the casualty while airborne.

[doublesix]

The air ambulance would be staffed by a pilot and two medics in a full ambulance configuration. The police aircraft would be kitted out to fulfill the police role but also able to take a stretcher patient. As an ex police observer, I would say the air ambulance took the most seriously injured casualty and the police aircraft took the other, along with a doctor/paramedic, either with both police observers or by leaving one behind as conditions dictated.

[TorqueOfTheDevil]

With respect Bertie, not sure that's the case.

For a start, unless I'm very much mistaken (apologies if I am), the Police helo would not have two IEC medics on board, casevac being only a secondary role for them.

Secondly, the dimensions of the small helos mean that attending to the casualty in flight can be very tricky, whatever the quantity and quality of medics on board - in stark contrast to the ease of casualty access in a Sea King or similar.

Thirdly, the one large helo could have, if need be, taken on an extra medic from those who attended by road. True, this would rob an ambulance of its paramedic for the time it took the helo to fly to Newcastle and back, but an ambulance is a less precious asset to tie up than a helicopter.

Besides, how much useful work could 4 medics have done on two casualties during what must have been a sub-10 minute flight to hospital?

[helimutt]

Another thing to think of, EGNT is not very far from the incident flying time wise,(10 mins?) so maybe with two a/c on scene, they just did what they thought was best at the time?

I'm sure those two microlight pilots have a deathwish tho!! :E

[Barshifter]

TorqueOfTheDevil

Helimed 58(The Big One as you put it.)was tasked to attend the incident from its base at Carlisle but had to return due to bad Wx in the Hexham area. With both occupants of the Microlight seriously injured time was maybe of the essance hence two aircraft.

[TorqueOfTheDevil]

Barshifter,

Sorry but you misunderstood me. The 'one large one', as I put it, was actually one of the SAR Sea Kings from Boulmer (the nearest helicopters to where the microlight crashed), not HM58 which is based so far away.

The fact that HM58 was tasked at all amazes me - why send an aircraft over 40 miles when there are two, each better equipped to handle several casualties, based less than 10 miles from the incident scene? In all, as it turns out, 3 helos from 3 bases were all tied up handling an incident which one (from a fourth base, closer than the other three) could have done - surely a waste of precious assets. And even had HM58 been a suitable asset, did noone notice that the weather was poor before despatching them across the Pennines?

What, I wonder was the rationale behind sending HM58 when Boulmer, Newcastle Airport and Otterburn are all much closer? Presumably there was a delay caused when HM58 got as far as Hexham but then had to turn back, meaning that another helicopter had to be tasked? It seems that 30 seconds rational thought at the outset, by whoever was controlling the incident (North East Ambulance Service?), would have saved many minutes of flying time.

As it turned out, one of the Boulmer Sea Kings successfully made it along the Tyne Valley, soon after Jim & Jon's lucky escape, on the way to an incident in the Lakes, and made it back again late that afternoon.

[bandeeto]

HM58 is an air ambulance - the right tool for the right job. You make the whole episode sound like a catalogue of errors when infact it probably went something like this.

1. Air ambo to scene finds two badly injured casualties - requests second aircraft.
2. Police aircraft goes to scene for police work - video/photograph/command and control
3. HM 58 cant make it so police offer services.
4. Both casualties quickly transported to the front door of Newcastle general

I could be more picky and sarcastic but its getting late...

I'm sure Jim and Jon think they are cats..

[tistisnot]

Careful, Bandeeto ..... you may be accused of living in the real world ....

[ShyTorque]

I'm sure Jim and Jon think they are cats..
Having first met Jim in 1984, I was also thinking that. :suspect:

Get well soon, to both! And for goodness' sake - take care out there :ooh:

[Flaxton Flyer]

TorqueOfTheDevil

Otterburn may indeed have been closer to the incident than Helimed58's base at Penrith. However, as there was no aircraft on duty there that day, that's a bit academic.

As for why they would send '58, Bandetto got it spot on. It's an Air Ambulance, you don't "tie it up" by sending it to accidents, that's what it's there for.

Looked at another way - why send an SK? You are then "tying up" an asset which could be needed for maritime, mountain, and other specialised duties.

Horses for courses, my friend.

And of course best wishes to Jon and Jim from all at H98/99.

[Skidkid]

Some readers may not be aware of the bravery of Jon, when both Jon and Jim were involved in a previous accident:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/cumbria/content/articles/2006/10/31/look_north_report_rescue_feature.shtml

[Russell Sprout]

Maybe from past experience, they didn't want to wait an age for the seaking to get fired up and transit to the scene.......

Flippin eck Jon/ Jim....... time to hang up the pitot cover, i'll see if Rothbury council have any spare allotments for your retirements.... Wishing you both a speedy recovery …….

Russell. :ok:

P.s Do you still need your GPS?

[Dan Reno]

A recent investigation in MA found numerous helos and ambulances were routinely dispatched to accdents knowing full well a single asset was only needed so as to justify their existence when it was budget review time.
Almost can't blame them when it's your own life or loved one in that accident.

[Barshifter]

Flaxton Flyer

Helimed 58(Dauphin) has its Operating base at Carlisle(EGNC) now.


TorqueOfTheDevil

Sorry about that.Thought you were talking about the Dauphin.

[Flaxton Flyer]

Cheers Barshifter, I'll update my mental HEMS location map!

[quichemech]

Dan Reno,

The Air Ambulances work a little differently in the UK, there aren't that many that overlap and they usually work within a dedicated area.
Also they are mainly funded by Charities and not hospitals or Insurance companies so they aren't chasing work, they are tasked by the Ambulance authority which has control of the geographic area.

[Genghis the Engineer]

The fact that HM58 was tasked at all amazes me - why send an aircraft over 40 miles when there are two, each better equipped to handle several casualties, based less than 10 miles from the incident scene? In all, as it turns out, 3 helos from 3 bases were all tied up handling an incident which one (from a fourth base, closer than the other three) could have done - surely a waste of precious assets. And even had HM58 been a suitable asset, did noone notice that the weather was poor before despatching them across the Pennines?

Probably because the information available at the time concerning the scale and severity of the accident was severely limited, and possibly contradictory, whilst the need for somebody to attend was clearly urgent? Also presumably an asset can be redirected once airborne if a more urgent requirement is identified?

G

[stan bycompass]

2 of our friends from the industry are seriously injured...
And the boys in Light Blue turn the thread into a pi**ing contest as to which aircraft was sent!!
I'm sure that Jim or John were very glad that assistance was delivered so swiftly, what ever the colour
My best wishes to them both for a speedy recovery

Still, even I can't resist lowering the tone with some provocative banter!!

The Navy is a tradition looking for a role
The Army is a role looking for a tradition
The RAF is neither looking for both

Roll on 2012

[TorqueOfTheDevil]

Stan,


The RAF is neither looking for both


Cheap shot Sir!


assistance was delivered so swiftly


...but it wasn't though, was it, because one Air Ambulance came all the way from Teesside and another tried to get across from Carlisle but couldn't get to the incident. Meanwhile, two other helicopters sat idle only 10 miles from the pair who needed help!

Not a pissing contest at all, just genuine interest as to the decision-making process - in the name of ensuring that casualties always get the best service possible. In this case, the summoning of aircraft from distant bases fortunately made no difference to the casualties' condition, but this might not always be the case. Is it really hard to understand my wondering why Air Ambulances were tasked from far afield, using up both time and cash, when a helicopter was available for free only a stone's throw away?

It is tying up precious assets to use three helicopters from three bases (removing Air Amb cover from Cumbria and Teesside) where one local one could have achieved the same end result. And it wouldn't be depriving the area of SAR cover, as Flaxton Flyer suggested, because there are at least two Sea Kings and two crews at each SAR base.

Or am I forever a heretic for daring to question why something was done, when it seems that there might have been a better alternative?

[Dan Reno]

Quichemech

Thanks for the insight. Is the UK system satisfactory without government support?

[Russell Sprout]

The only downfall in not having government support seems to be the lack of suitable hospital landing sites..... The shocking fact is, hospitals don’t like air ambulances because we cost them a fortune bringing in serious trauma patients that they have to spend money on.... Over the last few years i've seen 2 landing sites disappear because they can make more money out of them by turning them into car parks and making revenue out of the patch of ground.
It is a sad fact and one that totally makes air ambulances fall flat on their face. Most hospitals don’t have a landing site with direct access to the Accident and Emergency departments and require a pick up/ transfer of anything up to 3-4 miles from the pad by land ambulance..... Which can cost patients their lives!!!!!!

[HeliCraig]

When the NHS commissioned the new Walsgrave Hospital (it has some pretentious proper title involving universities, but I can't remember), in Coventry, they had a purpose built pad constructed right outside A&E. Has lighting and a windsock too!

The most amusing thing is that when it is in use nobody can get into or out of the car parks due to an access road being on the approach path (right in front of pad) - so it is closed during arrival / departure I am led to believe. Never seen Helimed 53 (or any other heli) arriving or departing at close range to confirm though - but I am told this is the case.

HC.

[bandeeto]

Hi Torque, just a couple of points..
All this closest aircraft is very good in theory, but fact is more that the ambulance will call the air ambulance first, then no one else.
Often the police at scene will suggest their helicopter, a paramedic might request it, or the crew at North East Air Support will be made aware of a serious accident by the control room and offer their services.
Last on the list every time is SAR. Especially for ambulance work. Most people just think 'winch' when you think of the Sea King, not the paramedic trained crews. In this case it was only 10 minutes away, but this is unusual.
I don't believe this task was a 'swoop and scoop' (but am not 100% certain)and both the air ambo and police were shut down on the ground for a time before transporting Jim and Jon.
I'm sure if you had the ability to monitor police or ambulance radios things may be different, but (correct me if I'm wrong) you're reliant on people contacting you by telephone, thats the problem...
Oh and while I'm here I cant resist another cheap shot/banter.. each base has two aircraft and two crews.. what? serviceable and on at the same time, good one!

[nodrama]

Agree with Bandeeto,

Air Ambulances in the UK are controlled by a regional control. The crew aren't listening out on a radio and jump at what incidences they feel like going to.
If ambulance control deemed what assets were available were needed (based on the info they had and before actual eyes on scene), that is why the a/c that attended were sent. And don't forget.....it's all about response time also (did I just say that?).

[TorqueOfTheDevil]

Bandeeto,

I hear your two serviceable aircraft at Boulmer and I raise you three! No kidding, three serviceable Sea Kings in the same place for the last two weeks. No more than two crews available at any one time though.

I agree with almost all of what you say (apart from the cruel - and untrue! - banter), especially about comms difficulties. I do think though that a crew who are specialists in handling downed aircrew would have something to offer at an incident like this (I know Jim & Jon weren't ejectees, but some of the injuries sustained in a microlight crash are likely to be similar to those sustained in an ejection).

The only bit I disagree with is your assertion that it's unusual for a SAR asset to be closer to an incident than an Air Amb - the SAR helo is often closer, hence my surprise that we're not often used by the Ambulance Service (why the reluctance? It's not as if they are going to be charged or criticised for using SAR, even if the aircraft gets recalled en route if the incident is resolved by other means). Last autumn there was a serious RTA on the A1 only 7 nm from Boulmer, but again the Air Ambs attended from Teesside and Carlisle while the Sea Kings at Boulmer sat idle. On that occasion, one of the casualties died en route to hospital (or was it in hospital?); I'm not suggesting for a moment that using the Sea King would have meant that the man would have survived, but it still seems perverse that a delay was incurred waiting for aircraft to arrive from far afield when a suitable asset was so close.

As for all this banter about response time, it would seem that some people have never actually seen a Sea King launch on a job! Assuming overland tasking in Day VMC, 5-6 mins is all it takes, which is hardly a great penalty over the 2-3 mins for an Air Ambulance - especially when the Sea King has 10 miles or less to transit to the scene compared with up to 50nm for everyone else. An Air Amb may go a bit quicker than a Sea King, but Concorde it ain't!

[Origimouse]

Watched the discussion grow with interest and was asked to submit this article yesterday.

1) HM58-VERY fast aircraft- 42nm from scene.

2) HM63-FAST aircraft-VERY FAST at start up. 47nm from scene. Just finishing

3) HM20- Off line that day.

Other things to be taken into consideration are - The aircraft are warm, have specialised medical equipment on board, have specialised drugs on board, have very experienced medics onboard including a Trauma Doctor/Anaesthetist, are quick to start up and are quick aircraft in flight. They can land-hot unload-and be airborne again in minutes, allowing another aircraft to land and unload their patient and can actually land at this particular hospital because they are small enough, etc, etc.

OK. H58 could not get there, but other suitable resources were able to (see ref to 063 above). Also on scene, were I99, the police aircraft, who always offer to assist in these situations and can also land at this particular hospital. Many, many thanks to those guys for their assistance in this and many other similar situations.

As the aircraft took the casualties from the scene, the land ambulance was then clear to carry out other duties. If the larger aircraft had been used, two ambulances would have been required at the alternative landing site for secondary transfer. The internal site at the hospital in question is not big enough for the larger aircraft. If the incident occurs during a busy period then land ambulances may not have been readily available, placing more pressure on stretched resources.

Hopefully we are highlighting the work of Air Ambulances. The bottom line is a doctor was on scene just after 20 minutes of the call. They received medical treatment from a doctor en route and despatched to the nearest appropriate hospital within 45 minutes. All the emergency services involved should be congratulated for their swift response and professional service. We can all learn from hindsight but hopefully this shows another side to the discussion!

Regards
OM

[[email protected]]

Stan, the only thing that might change in 2012 is that when the weather is bad or at night and the AA can't fly, there might not be a SAR helicopter available for overland poor wx tasking because the crews are civvy and might not have NVG.

Additionally, the MCA might not allow a maritime SAR asset to be tasked when a land ambulance is available so 2012 might not be the panacea you seek.

I suspect that the situation in this case was the usual scenario of a SAR helicopter being the last on the priority list at the Ambulance Control room because they don't understand aviation and probably still think they have to pay if they use us.

[nodrama]

Yes, it is probably true that an ambulance controller doesn't have a wealth of experience in helicopter operations......but the reason for police and SAR units being a lower priority on there 'picking' list is not because they don't like you....it's probably more due to the fact that they are ambulance service personnel, working in an ambulance service control room and therefore are more comfortable with using ambulance service assets...i.e first responders, rapid response vehicles, road ambulance crews and the air ambulance. It seems, in my experience, that police and SAR are asked to help if the normal ambulance assets aren't available or can't physically get to the scene.

[Fly_For_Fun]

I would have thought that an accident involving a downed aircraft situation would have been controlled by D & D and the SAR would have been top of their pick list. Just a thought not knowing who found what and when.

Best wishes to the chaps involved.

[Flaxton Flyer]

Crab -

“I suspect that the situation in this case was the usual scenario of a SAR helicopter being the last on the priority list at the Ambulance Control room because they don't understand aviation and probably still think they have to pay if they use us"

And I suspect that it was a case of the ambulance service using their dedicated assets to respond to a 999 call in accordance with SOPs. The clue is in the name – Air AMBULANCE. That’s exactly what they are – high-speed, rapid response front-line ambulances tasked in response to suitable 999 calls. Carrying paramedics and doctors highly experienced in this type of trauma.

Tasked by ambulance control dispatchers who have them in their system alongside the road ambulances. They know where they are, they know whether they are on or off-line, they know if they carry a doctor. Most of all they know that they are their assets to play with.

Can you say the same for the SAR cabs? Do all the ambulance control centres know the same information about all the SAR assets? Can they look at their screens and know instantly the operational status of the cabs – on-line, u/s, training, refueling, tasked on a mission etc ? Of course not.

SAR assets are not unconditionally available to ambulance control. The AAs are, that is why they are used for first response. That is their job. IF the situation requires specialist kit or procedures (mountain, maritime etc) then the AA crews invariably call on SAR. If any are available of course…

So, rather than the ambulance control “not understanding aviation” perhaps it’s your good self who doesn’t really understand the way the ambulance control works in the real world? (Or maybe you know it, but find it more convenient to ignore it?)

Here’s an idea. As you seem so desperate to annex HEMS, why don’t you offer the SAR cabs to the ambulance service for night HEMS? It will be a long time before any civvy units have the cash, equipment and training to safely take this on. You boys already have the kit and the training, and as you and Torque have pointed out, it’s all free! Win-win, and I’m sure that all the AA boys will thank you for saving them from a future of endless hours of hanging around through cold winter nights (when they could be tucked up in bed with the missus) and, quite frankly, risky ad-hoc night landings in the middle of nowhere on an inky-black winter’s night.

One other point about this incident. Torque said "Why send two small helicopters to lift one casualty each, thereby tying up two assets, when you could use one large one which is based nearby and could easily take both at once?"

Not sure if it has already been pointed out, but in a case like this involving multiple casualties, it is a little naive to expect them both to be extricated, stabilised and prepared for flight at the same time. If the first casualty extricated was in a critical condition, would the SK have sat around waiting for the second casualty or headed straight off to hospital? The second obviously, so I would venture that the fact that you could take carry two or even twenty two casualties at once is pretty irrelevant n'est-ce pas?

[Max Shutterspeed]

I would have thought that an accident involving a downed aircraft situation would have been controlled by D & D and the SAR would have been top of their pick list. Just a thought not knowing who found what and when.

Best wishes to the chaps involved.

But would they only be alerted by a Mayday call and not by a 999 by a member of the public? I don't think the guys got a call in.

Origimouse's post pretty well covers it for me, having been fortunate enough to spend time with both Carlisle and Teesside units.

Well done everyone, it must have been hard to attend to colleagues in such an event and get well soon guys, but I guess it will be a while before you're running across the tarmac again.

Regards

MS

[Russell Sprout]

Whats with the 'when the weather is bad or at night and the AA can't fly, there might not be a SAR helicopter available for overland poor wx tasking because the crews are civvy'????????

So what kind of special kit does SAR have since i left that allows it to fly in poor weather overland that a CIVVY AA not got? HEMS minimum flight rules are 300' cloud base 3000m viz...... would you want to be out in anything less than that?

[Max Shutterspeed]

So what kind of special kit does SAR have since i left that allows it to fly in poor weather overland that a CIVVY AA not got? HEMS minimum flight rules are 300' cloud base 3000m viz...... would you want to be out in anything less than that?

What about night landings into hazardous unprepared sites? I imagine that SAR have night vision equipment that would give them that capability.

MS

[Russell Sprout]

I agree, was hinting more towards the bad weather and civvys...

[[email protected]]

Russell - our weather limits are theoretically 150' and 1000m by day but we are allowed to operate well below this if the captain deems it neccessary to save life - this is why SAR helos can hover taxi under power lines and up the side of mountains in cloud. We have full IRs and a reasonable icing clearance allowing us to push further knowing we will have an IMC abort option, and we fly 2 pilot. At night we have NVG and our operational limits are again very flexible.

Flaxton - the problem with your argument is that the casualty is the one who has to wait for the ambulance control to task the land or air ambulance or both, wait for them to get on scene and decide the situation is not manageable and then wait for the control to request the SAR helo. This is not a pissing contest about who is better at what job, rather another opportunity to highlight the un-joined-up nature of emergency services response in UK. We have found that often the ambulance controllers are not only uninformed about the availability and capability of SAR helicopters but in some cases fed inaccurate information, specifically about cost (there is none).

[Max Shutterspeed]

Flaxton - the problem with your argument is that the casualty is the one who has to wait for the ambulance control to task the land or air ambulance or both, wait for them to get on scene and decide the situation is not manageable and then wait for the control to request the SAR helo. This is not a pissing contest about who is better at what job, rather another opportunity to highlight the un-joined-up nature of emergency services response in UK. We have found that often the ambulance controllers are not only uninformed about the availability and capability of SAR helicopters but in some cases fed inaccurate information, specifically about cost (there is none).

Interesting comments, Crab. I've heard the same passing remarks about costs and HEMS. Why do you think this situation prevails and what could be done to change it? Assuming rose tinted visor and no politics....

[Russell Sprout]

This seems like a flash in the pan, UK SAR do a brilliant job and i take my hat off to all that serve us, maybe on this occasion a seaking was closer but when you think that virtually every County has an Air Ambulance the odds are that one is always going to be closer than a SAR asset. In a medical situation the Military could never provide the service that an air ambulance could deliver within the same timeframe. Likewise you would be pissing in the wind sending a Air ambulance out to sea.

When you break down the roles of each force there is no contest:

Rescue at sea= SAR (Long range/ equipped/ winch/ support structure)

Trauma onshore= AA (Speed/ size/ equipment/ Skilled specialist- Doc/ Paramedic)

I hear that Flaxtons mob up in Yorkshire run a dedicated air desk staffed by ambulance control dispatchers with direct comms to the RCC in Kinloss, and have on numerous occasions called the Leconfield Seaking out to assist...... This definitely seems the way ahead.

One query i have from the SAR members…… Would you or have you ever considered transferring patients to an air ambulance for onward transfers to hospital due to the skills and equipment that they can offer?

[rans6andrew]

any news on the state of the 2 casualties?

[Saint Evil]

when it comes to tasking Torque is essentially correct. On a number of occaisions the Ambulance Service has called for an Air Ambulance because of the need to task an asset within it's timeframe targets laid down by the Government - once an asset tasked job done and nothing more required.

This is the essential difference between the Ambulance Auth's in England and Wales vs Scotland. Scotland has a dedicated Air Desk and they will act notianally as the ARCC would once a helicopter has been scrambled. Thus providing better support to the Air Ambulance and the Casualty etc.

When it comes to tasking of Air Ambulances vs SAR Helos the England and Wales Amb Auth's don't care/know what SAR can do for them - except those in Yorkshire after Leconfield did some excellent liaison work and now the Yorkshire Amb Auths will call Leconfield because they are aware of them and what they can do and how much they cost(Nothing).

Solution: Torque - go to the Newcastle Ambulance Control room and talk to them. In the end any aviation incident should come under the purview of SAR whether anyone likes it or not but after years of having SAR noone in the England and Wales Police, Ambulance authorities know what SAR does until a major city floods and then they come begging for help from someone who speaks helicopter.

Crab - please calm down about the future of SAR. No less capable than current facility and the bidders are well aware of the need for NVG.

Back to the theme of this thread: Glad both guys survived and wish a speedy full recovery and return to work.

Happy New Year

[Barshifter]

rans6andrew

Local Newspaper Reports following.

http://www.cumberland-news.co.uk

"TWO Cumbrian air ambulance crew members who were seriously injured in a plane crash were last night still critical but stable in intensive care.
Pilot Jim Martin, 49, and paramedic Jon Ker, 34, have both undergone surgery after the microlight they were flying on their day off plunged to the ground.
Mr Martin was taken in a police helicopter and Mr Ker in the Teesside-based air ambulance which is part of the Great North Air Ambulance Service the men work for. Mr Martin suffered life-threatening injuries to his legs, arm, and face. Mr Ker sustained a badly broken leg and significant head injury"

[[email protected]]

Russell - re transferring patients to AA for onward transfer, what skills and equipment will there be on an AA that we don't have on a SAR aircraft? The main problem will be the extra time taken for patient handover - the only reason I can think that you would want to transfer is if the SAR aircraft is needed for another job urgently and the casualty is not so time critical in terms of injuries.

Saint Evil - good points re tasking but the 'no less capable' statement has already started to be discussed and that is the first step towards compromising it. Maybe this is why the SARF is committing some top chaps to the scoring process for SARH. Whilst the bidders know they need NVG, the CAA are the ones who will have to change the rules to allow it as well as other exceptions to the ANO.

[Flaxton Flyer]

Saint Evil...

"When it comes to tasking of Air Ambulances vs SAR Helos the England and Wales Amb Auth's don't care/know what SAR can do for them - except those in Yorkshire after Leconfield did some excellent liaison work and now the Yorkshire Amb Auths will call Leconfield because they are aware of them and what they can do and how much they cost(Nothing)"

That's not quite the case Saint. Ambulance Control in Yorkshire no longer directly task / despatch / control any helicopters. Any request for helicopter support from YAS or any of the adjoining areas goes to the full-time dedicated helicopter despatchers manning the Airdesk at the Yorks Air Ambulance base. If the despatcher deems that SAR assets are the best option they will (and have on many occasions) be tasked.

The beauty of this is that the despatchers -YAS staff, medically trained and with good local knowledge - are located with the aircrew. We have real-time, on-line access to the 999 calls as they are coming in. Every potential job is looked at by despatcher and aircrew and if a response is deemed appropriate, it will be despatched, be it our helicopter, our ground vehicle, SAR or another AA from a neighbouring service.

Previously we depended on ambulance control identifying potential jobs for us. That either resulted in jobs being missed as the controllers were too busy to task us or forgot about us, or when we complained about not been used, inappropriate tasking which resulted in high stand down rates.
At one stage we had over 40% stand-down rate - now we are in the low teens.

We do have a good relationship with Lec, and our paramedics are often out flying with them on training sorties. We have also had Lec crew flying with us on the 902, so we are aware of their capabilities.

However, I have to keep harping back to the fact that some people keep conveniently ignoring -SARcabs are NOT primary, dedicated 999 response vehicles. We CANNOT rely on them to be there whenever we need them. So the ground ambulance is tasked (to every incident whether or not we attend). If we or the ground crew then decide that helicopter support is required, we despatch the AA. If that resource proves inadequate then we esaclate the response as required.

It is all about an appropriate and proportional response. If we deem SAR to be appropriate, we will use them. First response is not appropriate. Bringing them in as and when a need has been identified and they can bring something extra to the party is appropriate.

Crab - I can't speak for any other regions / AA operations, but I believe that the way we are trying to do it is in the best interests of the patients and best use of assets. Send the scouts in first, and then respond accordingly. Don't steam straight in with the carriers and battleships. And yes it will always be the case that we will look to use our assets first - that is after all why we have them.

Looked at from the other side - if you had,for example, a downed Tucano
and the crash site was located closer to an AA base than a SAR base would D+D call us or you? Are D+D aware of the location, capabilities and status (on-line, off-line tasked etc) of all the AA assets? I doubt it.

[Skidkid]

Further update:

Hexham Courant article: (http://www.hexham-courant.co.uk/news/viewarticle.aspx?id=582831)

Air ambulance crew ‘critical’

By GEMMA SOMERVILLE

A HEXHAM pilot and his Great North Air Ambulance colleague are in intensive care after surviving a flying accident which saw them fall from the sky.

Jim Martin (49), of Shaws Park and his workmate and friend, Jon Ker (34), from Rothbury, were both seriously injured after the light aircraft they were flying crashed near Morpeth on Sunday.

The GNAAS chief pilot Jim, and senior paramedic Jon, had to be freed from the wreckage by emergency services after their BanBi microlight crashed into a copse close to Burgham Park golf course and leisure club at Felton.

Both men were airlifted to Newcastle General Hospital with multiple injuries, one by air ambulance, the other by police helicopter.

Jim’s wife Margaret told the Courant on Monday that Jim, who is still in intensive care at Newcastle General Hospital, was unconscious and on a ventilator.

Jon has since been transferred to Newcastle’s Royal Victoria Infirmary for surgery on his ankle.

A spokesman for the GNAA described the accident as “tragic” and said the men were vital members of the GNAA team.

She said: “Our Teesside air ambulance responded to the accident as the nearest one available, as normal, only to discover it was Jim and Jon involved.

“They were flown to Newcastle General Hospital and taken straight into theatre.

“Our thoughts are with them and their families at this very difficult time and we wish them both a speedy recovery.”

The accident is the third time Jim, who began his flying career in the RAF, has cheated death.

Miraculously in January 2006, the pair survived a climbing accident on Ben Nevis which claimed the life of their friend and GNAA colleague, Dr Rupert Bennett.

The climbers had abandoned their attempt on the peak after bad weather set in, but as they began their descent the ground under Jim and Rupert gave way, and the pair plunged 150ft into a gully.

Rupert died in the fall, and a badly injured Jim was left fighting for survival on the mountainside for four hours while Jon, who was also hurt, managed to walk to the nearest rescue hut to raise the alarm.

Jon’s courageous efforts were recognised when he received a Vodafone Life Savers Award in November 2006.

Almost two decades earlier Jim had already defied the odds when he was the only survivor of a helicopter crash at Hanover Air Show in 1988, which killed all eight of his crew.

His Chinook helicopter burst into flames after its blades hit a set of aeroplane steps on the ground.

Following the microlight crash on Sunday, witnesses have recalled how they heard the aircraft’s engine cut out before it began falling into woodland from around 1,000ft.

Members of Burgham Park golf club who were on the course at the time are said to have witnessed the crash and contacted emergency services.

The microlight is believed to have set off from nearby Felton airfield and was thought to be heading for Eshott airfield.

A spokesman for Northumbria Police said: “We received a call at about 12.10pm from several people who had seen the plane come down. The two men in the plane were taken to hospital and the extent of their injuries is still unclear.

“It is unclear at the moment why the plane came down; both men were experienced pilots and had not reported any problems before it came down.”

Newcastle General Hospital confirmed yesterday that both Jim and Jon remained in a critical but stable condition.

The area around the crash site was being preserved earlier this week while accident investigators from the Air Accidents Investigation Branch (AAIB) began making inquiries.

[oldmanofthesky]

Saint Evil said: "This is the essential difference between the Ambulance Auth's in England and Wales vs Scotland. Scotland has a dedicated Air Desk and they will act notianally as the ARCC would once a helicopter has been scrambled. Thus providing better support to the Air Ambulance and the Casualty etc."

Regretably you are a little out of date regarding the Scottish Ambulance Service Air Desk. For various reasons, not the least being the fact that it was an unnecessary and time wasting layer of control that led to an impediment to expeditious tasking, the Air Desk was abolished in April 2006.

At this time control of the 2 HEMS helicopters in Scotland reverted to the relevant local Ambulance Control Centre. Basically, Inverness Control Centre for the Northern part of the country and Paisley for the Southern half, although there are no rigid geographical limits and either control can deal with an incident requiring the HEMS aircraft's attendance anywhere in Scotland.

This reversion of control led to a massive reduiction in Hems callout times and much more appropriate tasking

This long overdue abolition of the Air Desk was coincidental with the new long term Air Ambulance contract that was let to GAMA Aviation/Bond Air Services, and comprised 2 EC135s and 2 new new specially equipped King Airs.

There is a coordinating cell at GAMA's Operations Center but this deals only with planned/non HEMS flights.

Something that has not been mentioned regarding "tasking" of a SAR helicopter are the facts that:

1 Ambulance control (in Scotland anyway) cannot "task" a SAR helicopter, only request its provision

2 The decision whether to provide the SAR aircraft (or not) can sometimes take a very long time involving several phone calls to/fro

3 A busy Ambulance Control simply does not have the time for extended discussions re SAR helicopters and will inevitably send its own Ac with its simplified call out system

[[email protected]]

Flaxton - D & D don't but the ARRCK do - we would probably be tasked after D & D called the ARCCK and you would be called because someone phoned 999 and reported the crash.

Your setup sounds very good and mixes aviation knowledge with ambulance protocols - but for oldmanofthesky's post, I would have said it was the model that all ambulance authorities should follow; however, they have been using a similar model in Scotland and have rejected it in favour of direct tasking - I am afraid I don't know why.

OMOTSky - it should only take one call to the ARCC to ask for a SAR aircraft (the ARCC are the only ones in UK that can task us) and it usually just needs some basic information so that the controller can justify launching us (poor weather, remote location, AA on other tasking, life threatening injuries etc).

[oldmanofthesky]

Crab-The tasking system was changed BACK to direct tasking for HEMS missions following the 15 years or so experience of the Scottish Ambulance Service operating EMS Helicopters. 10 years direct tasking was followed by 5 years of tasking thru the Airdesk. This was coincidental with the contract change when GAMA took over the overall running of the AA contract in Scotland.

Trust me when I say it was an immense relief to revert to Direct Tasking for all involved, Aircrews, EMDC staff and land ambulance personnel. Just imagine another bunch of decision makers with little aviation knowledge and one eye on the budget between ARCC and the SAR Det.

The Airdesk was an unnecesary level of command that slowed down tasking/response and did nothing to enhance the AA operation.

With regard to a single call with sufficient info to ARCC being enough to allow the SAR helicopter to be tasked, maybe in theory, but believe me (I have very close ties to an EMDC) the process can sometimes take an extended time and involve many phone calls to and fro.

[[email protected]]

OMOTSky - so was it the individuals who were running the air desk that were the problem or just the concept of there being an air desk that was unpopular? Do you think Flaxton's setup will have the same problems or is it just down to who you put in to run the air desk tha makes the difference?

[Flaxton Flyer]

Crab -

oldman said "Just imagine another bunch of decision makers with little aviation knowledge and one eye on the budget between ARCC and the SAR Det"

Perhaps that's where the Scottish model fell down, and ours (so far) seems to work. Firstly, we don't have another bunch of decision makers - we have basically removed the original decision makers (ambulance service despatchers) from their control room and put them in with the aircrew. Masses of aviation, medical and local knowledge in one room. And secondly, (perhaps even more important) they don't have to worry about budget restraints.

We currently task our two aircraft in Yorkshire, plus GNAA's Teesside based 902 into North Yorkshire whenever they are better placed than us to attend. How far you could scale this up - for example a "North of England" AA despatch centre - is debatable.

Our Airdesk works because it is small scale and specialised. You could no doubt replicate it at the other AA units around the country given the will and the (not inconsiderable amounts of ) money required to introduce and man it.

At the end of the day, however, you would still be far from any type of centralised command and control of all the airborne assets.