UK Coast Guard S92s unable to use some hospital helipads

[163627]

This may be a non-story but today's Times (unable to post link due to pay firewall) reports that there is growing concern that the new S92 is unable to use some elevated hospital helipads that were fine for the Sea King. The DfT have apparently denied "that it had blundered" by buying helicopters that cannot land on these helipads. Apparently the issue was first raised by Royal Victoria Hospital in Newcastle. A Bristow spokesperson says they "are facing many legacy issues" since privatisation! I wonder what they are?

[abgd]

Even the Sea-Kings couldn't use some helipads such as UHW in Cardiff. At the RVI they're lucky in having a good field very close to the hospital. However generally speaking it is a big deal - the amount of faff and time involved in transferring a patient from hospital to ambulance to a sports field to a helicopter often wholly negates the utility of the helicopter, in my view.

[ORAC]

Hmmmmm

http://www.newcastle-hospitals.org.uk/downloads/Board%20of%20directors/A4(ii)_Heliport_March_2016_-_tabled.docx

"In March 2013 the Department for Transport announced that it had signed a contract with Bristow Helicopters Ltd to provide search and rescue helicopter services in the UK with operations commencing progressively from 2015. The new service is expected to be fully operational across the United Kingdom by Summer 2017 and will use Agusta Westland AW189 and Sikorsky S-92 based at ten locations around the UK.

The result in this change of operation of the Coastguard Search and Rescue (SAR) service has created a situation whereby a SAR Sikorsky S-92 helicopter cannot land on the heliport at the RVI. Since the introduction of Bristow’s this is the aircraft which has responded to the RVI using the secondary landing site on Castle Leazes Moor.

Concern was raised as soon as this became apparent and enquiries were made to establish a way forward and reinstate the heliport to receive these aircraft. The philosophy has always been to deliver a stabilised patient to the A&E department as quickly as possible to greatly increase the chance of survival in extreme circumstances.

In order to receive a Sikorsky S92 the specification of this would need to be 33 metres in diameter with a load capacity of 12 ton. The current weight limit is 9.7 ton and the aircraft diameter is 29 metres.

Bristow’s have confirmed that they will not use the heliport until there is alleviation in the current specifications. This has been provided in the past where the S92 replaced the Sea King flying into helidecks on offshore facilities. This was achieved by using a consultant, Consultavia to carry out the risk assessment. This risk assessment has been accepted by the Health and Safety Executive for the use helidecks aboard offshore installations.

This overall scenario was put to the Civil Aviation Authority are currently reviewing hospital heliports. The relevant document is CAP 1264 (Civil Aviation Publication on Air Ambulance Operations) which states “the safety of helicopter operations is clearly paramount to any design for an HLS at a hospital and there can be no alleviations from the regulations due to the emergency nature of an operation”.

Communication has been followed through with both Bristow’s and the CAA but as yet there has been no positive developments as such in moving matters forward. There have also been meetings with Newcastle International Airport from whom we contract the RVI heliport safety. Richard Knight, Operations Director at Newcastle International Airport has taken up the case with Bristow’s but we are still awaiting a response to be in a position where we can confirm that the Sikorsky will land at the RVI sometime in the future."...........

[Lyneham Lad]

The Times article:-
Rules stop helicopters landing at hospitals (http://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/safety-rules-stop-rescue-helicopters-landing-at-hospitals-2n3jrwxz5?shareToken=b9cd0604d3df6699aa1059d85f9e790a)

[tucumseh]

Project Management 101 - keep your IDDs up to date. If this has been done, then what was put in the bid, "compliant" or "non-compliant"? Or was a waiver granted against certain hospitals?

[ShyTorque]

Strange that Bristow didn't mention this slight inconvenience until after the contract was awarded...

[tucumseh]

ShyTorque

One has to ask what the Invitation to Tender said. Such a glaring omission (for example, I mentioned IDD's which are a mandated no-brainer, but habitually ignored) almost certainly prompted a clarification question. If MoD didn't answer properly, the bidder would be entitled to omit it from their bid. They MAY have asked the programme manager if they should include it as an option, but the sensible advice would have been, be wary, Commercial may see you as a smart arse and black ball you. This is common place. There is a moral obligation to seek clarification, but at the first hint of MoD reacting badly, you walk away and let them sink. I can offer a simple, real example. In 2007 the Nimrod IPT issued an ITT for an R&D contract. A bidder wrote to them and pointed out the spec they were asking for was obsolete, and another IPT had a better spec in-service, and MoD owned the IPR. Why not just amend the current support contract to buy a few more for Nimrod? Instead of being grateful, and recognising the bidder was giving work away, the Nimrod Commercial Manager formally complained to the company MD and binned their bid. In such circumstances, companies soon learn. If MoD won't listen, you simply answer the exam question. Not all MoD teams are the same, but this bid has a history. Trying to be fair to both sides!

[Sun Who]

I was one of the military reviewers of this ITT which, as Tucumseh says, has history. The issue of mil v CAA regs for landing at hospital helipads was raised, as were a number of other limitations. They were ignored as it had already been decided that such inconveniences would not be allowed to prejudice the predetermined outcome.

Sun.

[glad rag]

And some of those who contribute on this forum still cannot understand why Corbyn will be the next Prime Minister unless UKIP gets its act together (which seems highly unlikely )

[Sun Who]

And some of those who contribute on this forum still cannot understand why Corbyn will be the next Prime Minister unless UKIP gets its act together (which seems highly unlikely )
Eh?

Sun Who

[Heathrow Harry]

as ABGD points out many hospitals weren't directlty accessible by the Sea King - don't understand the fuss TBH

[Sun Who]

Airpolice,

That may well be what he meant. What I don't understand is how his post flowed from the topic under discussion. Unless I've missed something, it's a bloomin' big leap from SAR helipad limitations to comrade Corbyn. You can't just randomly inject an opinion into an un-related conversation.

Last on this from me.

Sun.

[Fareastdriver]

In order to receive a Sikorsky S92 the specification of this would need to be 33 metres in diameter with a load capacity of 12 ton. The current weight limit is 9.7 ton and the aircraft diameter is 29 metres.

Do what everybody else does when aircraft get bigger. Build bigger airports with longer runways and larger helipads.

[[email protected]]

But who will pay for that upgrade? That is the issue behind this.

The NHS built their HLS to cope with air ambulance not SAR since that is their primary 'customer' so why should they pay extra to accommodate occasional visits from SAR?

Maybe they need 189s all round if this is going to be a big issue. Not that I think many driving the S-92 are going to want to trade-down to the Leonardo product;)

[chopjock]

Why can't the S92 winch em down instead? they probably winched em up! Or even rotors running light on wheels with positive pitch applied?

[jimf671]

This is an old old issue and not just resulting from the recent adoption of a 12 tonne aircraft across the country. Even in Scotland where some helicopters are part of the NHS (and the S-92 has been in SAR service for around for 9 years), stupid half-baked decisions that are inconsistent with patient safety are made about Helicopter Landing Sites.

The Fort William situation is one of the most ridiculous since SAR and air ambulance helicopters are very regular visitors to the area and Belford Hospital is vital to trauma care in a large part of the West Highlands. Last I heard, plans for a replacement hospital, at a site that would in many ways be ideal for helicopters, were said to NOT include a HLS. Hopefully, during the years that it will take for the new hospital to become a reality, somebody will get a grip.

[fatmanmedia]

why not convert part of the car park to a landing site. How hard could it be???

Fats

[jimf671]

Noise!

If I understand the current position correctly, if there is any HLS, it will only be for quiet helicopters. :rolleyes:

[bigglesbutler]

why not convert part of the car park to a landing site. How hard could it be???

They can't charge for parking then.

Si

[jayteeto]

why not convert part of the car park to a landing site. How hard could it be???

As mentioned, £5 for 4 hours, times 100 cars soon adds up

Arrowe Park Hospital on the wirral used to have a helipad. Now its a car park.

When you are a hospital Chief Executive who's budget is being cut to the bone, you look to see where you can bring cash in.

[jimf671]

As mentioned, £5 for 4 hours, times 100 cars soon adds up

Arrowe Park Hospital on the wirral used to have a helipad. Now its a car park.

When you are a hospital Chief Executive who's budget is being cut to the bone, you look to see where you can bring cash in.


That does not happen in Scotland.


=====================================

Dear hospital planners, examples for consideration.

Helimed 2 landing at Raigmore Hospital, Inverness. (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PF28CIvLhrk)
R948 at Raigmore. (https://c1.staticflickr.com/1/755/20903108689_9421195812_b.jpg)

R900 landing at Aberdeen Royal Infirmary. (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EkqbccAUwiQ)
R900 at the ARI again. (http://www.oilandgaspeople.com/news/images/newsimage-1-aberdeen_coastguard_issue_warning_after_incident_at_ari.png)

[VX275]

They can't charge for parking then.

Si

There was a news story recently where a UK Helimed landed in a car park to pick up a casualty and the pilot PAYED the parking fee.

[jayteeto]

JimF, loved the videos........ However......... the acres of space around those areas is mightily impressive. Most hospital landing sites around here are jammed inbetween buildings or have cars parked RIGHT up to the borders, all the way around. If there is any space, it has a building erected or a car park opened there. The HLS at Warrington hospital is 2 miles away from the site!! At visiting times there isnt a single free space within a mile; gold bars are worth less than a car parking space.

[jimf671]

I appreciate the point you are trying make jayteeto and clearly there are different problems with space in different cities.

However, this is like the thousands of small business owner across the country who do not have space for a truck to deliver their orders.

If the hospital was built in 1852 then I can see how there was no plan for a HLS. It's 2016 and HEMS and SAR helicopters are not going away any time soon. Half-baked after-thoughts are being accepted far too easily.

[abgd]

as ABGD points out many hospitals weren't directlty accessible by the Sea King - don't understand the fuss TBHWhilst I pointed out that there are helipads the Sea Kings cannot use, I didn't mean to imply that it's not a big deal.

I work in a rural hospital that is about 2 hours away from the nearest big hospital by blue-light ambulance and 3 hours away from the major trauma centre. We don't have a helipad and even though the landing field is only a few minutes away by ambulance, this slows things down no end.

Firstly you need an ambulance to take the patient to the helicopter. Whilst ambulance availability is generally OK here, it's by no means guaranteed. As we all know, the NHS is falling apart and we're starting to see patients come to harm because there are no free ambulances in the county, on a reasonably regular basis. If you need to involve an extra ambulance then this brings the potential for lengthy delays and also is a big drain on resources - e.g. the ambulance may need to travel 45 minutes to get to the hospital then 45 minutes to get back on station after the transfer.

Secondly, ambulance and air ambulance equipment often isn't quite compatible. Say you have a patient in the emergency department with an unstable spinal fracture (known or suspected). You really want to minimise transfers and log-rolls as much as possible to avoid causing further injury, but to transfer a patient from a hospital trolley to an ambulance trolley involves a whole rigmarole of spinal boards and teams of people. If you then need to transfer the patient from the ambulance trolley to the air ambulance then you have to repeat this whole exercise. It's all time consuming and risky.

Thirdly is the issue of handover - if you're in an ambulance or air ambulance you need to know something about the patient you're looking after, which means that you need to be briefed, which takes time. In order for the air ambulance crew to know about the patient they either need to be brought to the emergency department or for the ambulance crew to tell them all about their injuries and previous medical history or for someone from the ED to go out and brief them. Games of 'Chinese Whispers' don't facilitate clear communication and again, moving staff about to facilitate handover takes an age and delays the whole process.

I'll confess I only have anything to do with air ambulances a few times a year, but my general impression is that the whole process above can easily take half an hour or so. If you have to repeat it at the other end then the utility of the air ambulance (journey time of half an hour rather than two hours) is greatly reduced - you're only saving half an hour whilst increasing the risks of miscommunication or injury on transfer. And this is in a rural area where the advantages of helicopter transport should be most compelling.

Helicopter transfer is great if you can put the patient in a lift, get them out on the helipad then magic-carpet them to wherever they need to be. If you can't, then frankly often-as-not you may as well not bother and the money would be far better spent on road ambulances. Obviously SAR helicopters have a role in rescue as well as transfer, but still.... if you can't deliver patients to the door then you're hobbled.

[jimf671]

Some really good points there. Even the Raigmore and ARI sites are using emergency ambulances as site transport to get the patient to/from the building. These sites are lucky enough to have major ambulance stations next door but that may not help with the handover issue.

[[email protected]]

Have a look at Swansea Morriston and Southampton General Hospitals - they built the HLS over the car park so you can still park cars underneath and have a high strength helipad on top.

[jayteeto]

There is ALWAYS an option, Swansea and Southampton are great, but SOMEONE has to pay for it to be built.......... 1 million for a helipad means a lot of cancelled operations and clinics. There just isn't enough money.

PS. Didnt a charity build one of the above pads?

[abgd]

TFIC isn't a raised helipad a waste of a potential multistorey carpark?

[jimf671]

A million?

Chicken feed.

One person slips just over the edge from survival to the alternative because of an excessive chain of handling, chinese whispers, excessive delay, lack of ambulance (abgd has the list) and it costs the state what in real money? Well, the numbers I am hearing from the justice system for the cost to the state of an accidental death mean saving that one person pays for your million pound helipad. When the person returns to working health and pays taxes: bonus!

[[email protected]]

PS. Didnt a charity build one of the above pads? since charities pay for the air ambos in the first place then why not?

TFIC isn't a raised helipad a waste of a potential multistorey carpark? If that was a valid argument, all hospitals would build multi-storey carparks on their existing car park areas. With the raised helipad, you keep your existing parking revenue and get a decent helipad right outside the front door.

[Self loading bear]

The heli pad is just the roof on the open top level of the multi story car park.

SLB

[drugsdontwork]

Sorry but just because the RAF and RN Seakings could land on the RVI pad does not mean it was safe. They were allowed to by a relative lack of regulation. However each approach had varying degrees of exposure where an engine failure would result in a large hole in the hospital or city centre. An S92 is much less exposed in this regard and that's before you consider the likelihood of engine failure between the two types.

Also the RVI site limited arrivals on the top lad to six minutes if I recall due to some design issues with their intensive care ventilation. As this was not normally long enough to transfer a casualty and recover the winchman a second take off and landing was expected with all the extra risk involved in that.

It's not fair to blame Bristow for this. The regulations are much tighter for civilian operations and there are good safety reasons for this. Although no regulation precluded RAF Seakings from using the top lad some people in the RAF elected to use the RVI bottom site for the reasons outlined above.

[jimf671]

It would be interesting to observe the alternative universe where the government bought S-92 and AW149 for SAR Force and the FAA SAR flights. It might be that with new modern types and the slow but steady march of the MAA the regulatory environment would not be so different.

Back in this universe, the CAA have done an amazing job in relation to regulating SAR but in this case there is more than 4 aircrew, an aircraft, a casualty and a piece of rock to think about: not forgetting an insurance company and an HR Director. Lifesaving flight in a SAR tasking invokes CAP 999 but a building full of sick people in a congested area invokes common sense and clearly a number of hospital authorities are not playing their part.