SQ221 Air Med One?
 

In the wee hours on 17th July,I overheard rather interesting radio calls on MEL VHF. SQ 221 requested medical assistances upon arrival and priority for arrival.Estimated position of SQ was near Leigh Creek(LEC).A series of calls were exchanged and the lady controller reckon SQ would arrive SYD before curfew is over.Here is a bit of it:

Lady controller:" SQ 221,are you declaring Air Med One?"
SQ:" Err...is it possible?".

After abour a minute of silence,

Lady controller:" SQ221,are you declaring Air Med One?"
SQ:"Err........"
a/c A:" You got to be joking!"
a/c B:" Just declare it!"
SQ:" Other stations,mind your own business!"

The whole conversation made an impression that SQ had an urgent medical case on board but very reluctant to declare an emergency.Below are my questions,hope someone in the know could shed some light.

1) What is 'Air Med One'? Went through the Australia AIP but found nothing about that term.
2) Would 'Air Med One' condition overide a curfew without penalty?
3) At that position,wouldn't it be better to divert to MEL since it is nearer? Not questioning the crew decision here but as a point of discussion where $$ versus human life?

Probably meant Med One - life saving type transport. Whereas Med Two is returning medical staff etc from a life saving type mission.

It's in the AIP, somewhere.

So, did they go to MED 1?

SQ221 often (If I'm thinking right) has curfew "fringe" dispensation and can land between 5am and 6am on RWY 34L; but at MED 1 status I suspect they can land before 5am.

I would also suspect if they were closer to AD or ML than SY, declaring MED1 would initiate a diversion; so it's possibly a little more complicated than just saying "affirm MED 1". But if it truly were a MED 1 scenario and they didn't declare and divert then they could and should IMHO be found to be negligent.

The only thing that has higher priority than MED 1 is another MED 1 in front; usually we give as much track shortening as safely possible and cancel all speed restrictions etc.

The only thing that has higher priority than MED 1 is another MED 1 in front; usually we give as much track shortening as safely possible and cancel all speed restrictions etc. Today 03:47

I thought I read somewhere that MED 1 wasn't the highest priority. A/C in distress or perhaps hijacking had greater priority over MED 1. When you think about it MED 1 might mean a single person is in need or urgent assistance, an A/C that could crash (for various reasons & therefore would be in distress) could have a possible result of many in need of urgent assitance.
Just mt thoughts that's all

FG

I thought Heads of State had priority over Med One!;)

crikey Flyingit ..

that'd be a bad day for any controller if all that was happening at once!

along with the disclaimer, nothing in [the book] precludes the use of common sense by an operator .. or some such similar wording ..

I was working a downstream sector for that flight and can shed some light. As part of the sequenced arrivals system for Sydney, early arrivals (not curfew dispensated) are issued feeder fix times at around 4am local in an attempt to ease congestion at the 6am open doors at YSSY. Even though SIA221 is curfew dispensated, they were running late , were arriving post 6am and therefore caught up in the sequenquenced arrivals program. Their alotted slot time meant a 10min slow down from their estimate for the feeder fix. When issued with their fix time (somewhere over Leigh Creek) the crew stated they had a sick passenger & had organised an ambulance through company channels to meet them on their arrival and could they get some priority reference their ten minute slow down. This was their first mention of any sort of onboard medical issue to ATC. As they were part of the sequenced arrival program to jump the queue they needed to declare their MED1 status if the situation required it. If not the ambulance would still be there 10 minute delay or not. This is what the controller was trying to solicit from the crew. A declaration of MED1 status was all that was required but it was akin to pulling teeth and the frustrations of others on freq became too much for them to contain themselves.
The crew subsequently declared MED1, where given appropriate priority, tracked direct YSSY, the sequence was rejigged, other arrivals were delayed to make room and all was sweet with SIA221 arriving 15 min earlier than scheduled. The system worked. All that was required was for the captain to declare the MED1 status.:ok:

You are indeed correct flyinggit aircraft subjected to unlawful intereference are the HIGHEST priority, followed by:

-Multi-engine aircraft that has lost an engine.
-Aircraft with radio failure.
-An aircraft which has declared a 'Mercy Flight'.
-Aircraft involved in SAR, 'Med 1' or under a 'Hospital' callsign.
-An aircraft operating under a 'Polair' callsign.
-Heads of State.

Then...
You lot in your big shiny jets!;)

Source : AIP ENR 10.1

You "Terry Technical types" are unbelievable... I stand by what I said and the day I get a Hijack is the day I'll reconsider my priorities... geez. As for aircraft you can't talk to or ones likely to fall out of the sky, well durrrrrrr!

Interestingly on an aeromedical flight it is the medical crew who decide the medical status of the flight, the captain merely relays it to ATC!;)

PS: Do I qualify as a 'terry technical type'?:}

Interestingly polair only has priority when category red or where life is at risk, sure doesnt stop them trying though. Can remember plodair one evening after EN TWR was closed getting totally bent out of shape when told by ML to wait in the queue to get into EN CTR. Very unprofessional i thought and the nice lady controller wasnt having a bar of it! :}

Forgot to mention that the aircraft was the A380 so his choice of alternates was limited. Even though they were only 250nm from Adelaide I don't believe it has been upgraded to A380 status leaving only Melbourne & Brisbane as the other alternates. At the time of the MED1 declaration I think it was about 650nm (direct) to Sydney and about 500 to Melbourne.

Wasn't a good night up north either, Jetstar into DN requested an ambulance on arrival.

This type of exchange is indicative of a bigger problem.
While I have the utmost respect for our controller colleauges I have noticed a trend ( and particularly in the mentioned country) , where some controllers have a firm grip of the non essentials.
I reckon 90 % of foreign crews ( if the story you relate is correct) would have said ( what the F%^K is Air Med One ?) , and off course the next 10 min spent would be a useless banter between crew and atc ( when we all know what we are trying to achieve)

I guarantee you I can pull out little "notes" like this from every single country's AIP. The question is not one of trying to get things text book perfect and procedurally 100 % correct. Its about solving the problem, often referrred to as the big picture.

If the crew are struggling to understand your "code" and you are worried about litigation or procedure , then just say it in plain English !

" SQ Bla Bla , To give you priority handling for a medical emergency I require you to declare a medical emergency. "

"SQ Bla Bla .Thankyou ( non standard) , we are declaring a medical emergency.

As an Industry we are so busy dotting the (i) and crossing the (t) that no one is reading the sentence !!!

I think you will find she was probably saying "Are you declaring a Med One" not "Air Med One".
Its not that unusual. Probably get 4-5 a year inbound from the Pacific and Tasman.
I check whether the sick one is a Kiwi, and if so put them in a holding pattern for a while :E

Bit like asking Emirates if they require Rwy 34 or are they just requesting it. If you don't give it to them and something happens your ar$e is grass, just give it to em. Common sense really.

They've got a sick pax, they've organised an ambo...... Ahhh better get it on tape that they are med1 before I clear them. Ar$e guarding at it's worst :ugh:

Old Bull indeed , my point exactly.

Yeahs that's all fantastic until something goes wrong and it goes to court. If you can stand up and say I did it as per the manual you are untouchable. The minute you start making stuff up you will get hammered and possibly sued.

Unfortunately that is just the way it is in today society. Yeah it might be arse guarding but the risk to do otherwise is really to great.

Neville Nobody,

Izzatso ---Not really, with all due respect I refer you to the Advance Airlines crash on runway (now) 34L at YSSY, and what the subsequent inquiry/legal action thought of the controller's actions, when the aircraft Captain said everything but "mayday".

A pedantic reliance on "the book" does not override a requirement for a proper exercise of professional expertise and judgment ---- and this applies in any field, not just aviation.

The "Nuremberg Defense" in not exactly a reliable defense.

Tootle pip !!

PS: Unfortunately, in particular when they find out otherwise the hard away, and very commonly in the Australian aviation community, many people believe your statement is an accurate description of the legal position.

As someone who "plain speaks" regularly, I think a few things need to be said. I can plain speak, because I am allowed to. In oz, it's not that simple. The situations we are talking about are not the big, standing in court after a mid-air type scenarios, they are the daily minutia that gets your arse in trouble on a local level ie. with your boss. If you don't follow the book, then you expose yourself to the range of being told off, formal recording of your transgression (which might bite you later on), disciplinary action or even dismissal. All on a local level. It's the culture in AsA. Before anyone starts with the "just get the job done" drivel- it'd be nice, but it's not the way things work. If your company SOPs say that you must fly the ILS if it's available, and you decide it would be nice to hand fly the arrival every now and then, what is going to happen to you? I'd hazard a guess at; any of the results previously mentioned. Having said that, there is a notable over-interest in the minutia (standards checking) in oz (IMHO). The reason being that there isnt a lot to pick on, so the culture is pretty tiresome.
Add to the mix a propensity for the ever-increasing practice of making statement's like "we are a bit low on fuel" "we have a sick pax" "we are running late, can we...." If ATC is expected to take the "just see the big picture and help out approach", pretty soon everyone is going to very pissed off with guys who seemingly can't manage their fuel getting the 'no delay, straight in' every time.
Priority declaration requests are standardised for a reason. The ATC who is making decisions based on what you tell him, is in the same boat as the Capt who has to weigh up the ramifications of declaring emergency. What seems "anal" stems from the same culture that has pilots fearing fuel emg declarations.