Southampton ATC - Medevac fob off

[Aero Mad]

BBC News - Southampton Airport closure diverts medical plane (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-11688502) shows that because the Aurigny Trislander got in at 2310 rather than 2300, SOU told it to go elsewhere.

Woman had head injuries, Tri had to fly to Bounemouth and ambulance had to drive there to get her back to Southampton hospital!!! NATS controller couldn't wait another 10 minutes.

Any explanations?

[Barnaby the Bear]

SRATCOH?.... Perhaps the ATCO felt he/she was not comfortable providing an extra 10+ minutes due to fatigue?
Did flight have Ambulance status? And if not was it made clear?
Its not always just as simple as staying on for a another 10 minutes even under these circumstances.
:oh:

[HEATHROW DIRECTOR]

Difficult to believe it had anything to do with ATC. I suspect that for a variety of reasons the airfield had to close at a particular time - safety services, aerodrome licence, etc. ATC is just one factor. I'm certain that if it had been possible to keep the airfield open the controller would have been only too happy to agree to a few minutes extension.

What worries me more is the fact that the ambulance had to drive to Bournemouth. Would it not have been possible to get a local ambulance from Bournemouth to take over?

[LostThePicture]

I would also suspect it has something to do with the airport authority. Current reports don't exactly paint NATS in a good light though, do they? Good old corporate comms...

[Glamdring]

If the airport was closed there probably wouldn't have been the required fire cover either.

[Lou Scannon]

All these posts are missing the point.

What would appear to be a filed aeromedical flight with a serious casualty on board was denied landing at the destination airport because it would arrive there ten minutes after normal closing time.

This ill-conceived action almost certainly put the patient at some risk.

The persons responsible for this casual indifference to a seriously ill pax should hang their heads in shame instead of muttering about "feeling a little tired" or offering other lame excuses.

Perhaps the flight had not been filed correctly, perhaps the inbound captain failed to pre-fix his calls with "This is an aeromedical flight" but if neither action was omitted this one looks as if it is down to Southampton's attitude towards passenger care.

[Aero Mad]

Lou, agree with you totally.

However, with a flight number like GR999 and a flight time outside of any of Aurigny's normal schedule, I should say it is pretty damned obvious - SOU has taken Aurigny medevacs previously as well.

Come on, paper pushing should not even have the potential to cost lives :(

[Lord Spandex Masher]

You can't blame it on ATC.

Traditionally it is the Fire Brigade that dictate how long after closing time SOU stays open for. If they don't feel like a bit of overtime they just bugger off. Sometimes you can get an extension but more often than not you wont. I have witnessed aircraft being sent around from final at 2200 and diverted to BOH because they would land after the normal closing time.

[Aero Mad]

Yes, but the article states that it was NATS with the staffing problem.

[Sir Herbert Gussett]

Everyone trust the media, they are 100% reliable :)

[Aero Mad]

Exactly :E

However it did state that they had said they would try to avoid such staffing issues in future. This implies someone who wrote the article spoke to a NATS source.

[Sir Herbert Gussett]

The Nats statement is: "We're working with Southampton Airport to try to ensure this does not happen again."

What "this" means could be a variety of things - it may even be a really, really bad corporate communications bod! The article seems to be hell-bent against Nats right from the start and isn't balanced journalism at all. The full-picture hasn't been painted and all we have is some blurry suggestions pathetically slapped together by some journo like a Claude Monet painting!

[Aero Mad]

Yeah - arguably BBC Local does sometimes leave a little to be desired!

[niknak]

I can't believe that any UK ATCO would do this ifindeed was a properly filed medivac flight.
I think that all of us would have stayed on for as long as needed then filed a STRACOH report, equally, the same applies to all the AFS staff at all the airports I've previously worked at.
If, however, Auriegny had failed to make the Duty Manager at Southampton aware that it was indeed such a flight and the pilot failed to declare it as such, then there's only so long I would expect the Fire Service, or anyone else, to wait.

[Standard Noise]

All these posts are missing the point................This ill-conceived action almost certainly put the patient at some risk.

I quite agree, I mean, is the slow, lumbering Trislander really suitable for transporting 'a seriously ill pax'? Shocking!

[Malthouse]

Could the late departure of the medivac have anything to do with it? Perhaps this meant that SOU was not kept up to date, perhaps the fire and tower were already closed down by the time they called?

[Helen49]

Possibly it was a Tri-lander because Aurigny is contracted to provide ambulance flights in the Channel Islands?
Helen

[Aero Mad]

Yes Helen, although Blue Islands may also do Alderney - Guernsey (with an Islander - or maybe a Trislander if they still have one; situation uncertain).

[HEATHROW DIRECTOR]

The Trislander is the most utterly dreadfully appalling aeroplane I have ever travelled in so I don't envy the patients..

[slowclimber]

I can understand that NATS controllers would want to stand up for their colleagues - somebody has to - but the BBC quotes are quite clear. "On this occasion Nats were unable to provide staffing cover beyond our closing time" said the airport. They wouldn't say this if it was the ADM who refused the flight, or because the RFFS were unavailable, or because AUR had failed to make the flight status clear (out of hours, non-scheduled, mandatory flight-plan - sounds pretty clear to me.) Those who find it "difficult to believe it had anything to do with Southampton ATC" are unlikely to be ATCOs working on the south coast...

Anyway, I'd hardly suggest that the story had a happy ending, but at least Bournemouth were able to accept the flight. Let's hope the casualty's recovery is full and swift. As for the BBC's criticism, Southampton have been on the receiving end of uncritical BBC adulation for too long now, so: tough.

Heathrow Director: With a serious head injury, I really don't think you'd be worrying about the quality of the decor or the lack of in-flight entertainment, do you?

[Aero Mad]

slowclimber, totally agree with you however with a serious head injury, the terrible sound that the Trislander makes would only making your throbbing head worse.

[OA32]

I was working that evening and feel that the media have misled the public by failing to divulge all parts of the story (something they frequently do). The plane was running much later than expected and for whatever reason Southampton were unable to stay open. As a result the flightplan was changed to Bournemouth at least 30 mins before the a/c got airborne giving plenty of time for the ambulance to get there before it landed.

[HEATHROW DIRECTOR]

Thanks OA32... Brilliant..... maybe that will silence some of the critics. Looks like it's a "nothing" story after all.

I agree with Aero Mad. The Tri...thingy is the last vehicle I would wish to travel in with a head problem.

[Aero Mad]

Thanks for your reply, OA32. That seems much more reasonable. The Guernsey - Bournemouth flight by Trislander is actually quicker than Guernsey - Southampton! :ok:

[Lou Scannon]

If what OA32 says is true and that the decision was made 30 mins before the delayed departure the diversion starts to make aeronautical and medical sense.

Can anyone pass on more information that will negate the need for any of us aviation people to feel embarrassed about this event?

[spekesoftly]

Can anyone ..........1) Always treat media reports with suspicion.

2) Never judge until all facts are known.

;)

[chevvron]

3) Never talk to a journalist - however innocent you THINK your statements are, they will find a way of 'twisting' it to their own agenda eg leaving out a single important word such as 'reported', 'alleged', 'unnofficial' etc.
Example: Aircraft departs your airfield but instead of following noise abatement, this is cancelled by ATC in order to avoid delay due to a transit aircraft with more than minimum separation being maintained. Member of the public complains, and is told this in all innocence and honesty.
Press are informed by the complainer and in the local paper it becomes a headline 'DEPARTING JET IN NEAR MISS DRAMA'! with ATC being the villians.
Nuff said?

[Nimmer]

So a non story, so why didn't our NATS spokesperson just explain the story fully, instead of even mentioning staff shortages??

Again ATC portrayed as villains, when as ever there is a simple explanation.

[Sir Herbert Gussett]

Love how I've been regarded as a NATS Controller just for criticising shoddy journalism and people taking 1 news report as pure fact. :E I'm afraid my brain isn't strong enough for ATC! And I would rather shoot my foot than deal with a Ryanair pilot !

Nimmer - I have a friend who works in PR and says most companies have terrible "Corporate Communications".

[25 DME FIX]

How about this scenario, BAA will not pay NATS for sufficient controllers to cover past 2300? NATS has apparently made multiple offers, but BAA not interested in paying for coverage. So hardly a NATS staffing problem, cannot understand why NATS are apologising for something that is not of their making.

Do not know all details of the AUR diversion, but understand that SOU closed on schedule at 2230 that evening and the aircraft had already re-filed to BOH.

Any coverage past 2300 is purely voluntary on the part of controllers. However have heard that NATS managment have in the past expressed their displeasure to controllers when some have not volunteered to stay for late arriving scheduled flights.

Don't blame ATC, BAA are the ones that should hold their hands up and publicly apologise.

[slowclimber]

Still missing the point. The airport would not have been quoted as saying that "On this occasion Nats were unable to provide staffing cover beyond our closing time" if it was the airport that was unable to stay open, or do we have proof that it was BAA who refused the flight? I don't think it was ever actually alleged that the situation involved an in-flight diversion, but the time taken to refile, organise handling at the new destination, plus the extra road ambulance journey time back to Southampton all adds up at a critical time. I believe there were delays in getting the ambulance to Bournemouth too.

I have never refused to stay on beyond the end of a shift, unpaid, to ensure a Cat A flight has been handled safely and quickly - and I hope I would never have to.

[25 DME FIX]

Slow climber

Who has provided any evidence to show that the flight plan indicated CAT A status, or other information received by BAA stated that it was CAT A flight?

[anotherthing]

Slowclimber,

I think it is maybe you who are 'missing the point'! Read the post by OA32 who was working that evening, and who has a profile that indicates they work in the Channel Islands...

Refiling if it was a CAT A flight would have taken minutes. That is of course if it was filed as a CAT A flight.

As for your point about aircraft handling - it would have been just as difficult (in fact probably more so) to arrange at EGHI out of hours than it would at EGHH which operates H24 :ugh:

It is very difficult from a licensing (airport operating point of view) to extend at short notice, this has nothing to do with SRATCOH or individual ATCOS.

The Southampton area in particular is harshly policed due to the New Forest NIMBYS (I myself am a New Forest dweller). As an aircraft operator, it extremely irresponsible and unnprofessional to plan a flight to an airport that you know will be closed. As appears to be the case in the reported incident, the aircraft operator did the responsible thing and when they knew they would be outside the operating hours of EGHI they planned for EGHH instead.

The facts of this story are known by (probably) a small number of people... I would trust OA32's version over that reported by the media.

As an aside, as you mentioned it, the fact that the ambulance was delayed in getting to Bournemouth has absolutely nothing to do with NATS, nor the Airport Authority, an unfortunate additional factor maybe, but nothing to do with the airport.

[hangten]

I quite agree, I mean, is the slow, lumbering Trislander really suitable for transporting 'a seriously ill pax'? Shocking!

The Trislander is the most utterly dreadfully appalling aeroplane I have ever travelled in so I don't envy the patients..

Hey! That's good Isle of Wight technology and manufacturing you're knocking! Britten-Norman is the last remaining UK independent commercial aircraft producer! According to Wikipedia:

The Trislander has exceptional low speed handling characteristics, extended endurance, increased payload, low noise signature and economical operating costs. Capable of taking off from a 450 metre long landing strip, the Trislander can readily operate from unprepared surfaces.

Well alright, a low noise signature for a 1970 prop aircraft but apart from that I think it's pretty useful for an ambulance flight! There'd be no point paying for a nice looking Lear Jet if the nearest tarmac strip was hours away...

Sorry. Thread creep.

[Sir Herbert Gussett]

Now I wonder who spilled the story to BBC News - the family of the patient? The ambulance driver? :)

[HEATHROW DIRECTOR]

Hangten.. You wanna take a ride in one; you wouldn't want to do it again! My wife and I flew Jersey-Guernsey and return and vowed never to get anywhere near one again!

[Standard Noise]

That's good Isle of Wight technology and manufacturing you're knocking!

Hey, Sheds were built in my neck of the woods, but it doesn't mean I'd want a ride in one if I was ill!

[Aero Mad]

HR, you're nasty ;). hangten, for your info Alderney has an 880m tarmac runway. Not enough for a Lear, though!