Money for Air Ambulances (and Crews!!)
Thread Starter
Money for Air Ambulances (and Crews!!)
Fairly hot off the press, it will be interesting to see how this works out.. .<a href="http://www.doh.gov.uk/newsdesk/latest/4-naa-28032002.htm" target="_blank">http://www.doh.gov.uk/newsdesk/latest/4-naa-28032002.htm</a>
About bloody time! The scots did it years ago. All it needs now is a constant flow from the government, not enough to make them complacent, but sufficient to make them work.. .Good news all round.. .Shame about Centrica pulling out though.
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: UK
Posts: 27
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Great news. It would have been a real shame to see the newer units go under when the AA funding ran out.. .. .I take it the £150,000 per year towards Flight Para's is per unit (approx 6 Paramedics per year including sick leave, annual leave, over-time etc...). If it's for the entire country then I'm due a pay cut! Anybody from the DoH out there?
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: UK
Age: 71
Posts: 1,364
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Like TC et al, it seems good news to me too. Once the NHS has implicitly accepted the value of air ambulances, it would seem difficult for them not to progess to a continuous funding of this service - assuming that logic and morality applies to decisions made by politicians, of course?! . .. .I don't know what those directly involved think, but another desirable improvement may be a sensible basis for deployment of this scarce and expensive resource - I have seen/heard about some fairly strange uses of air ambulances.
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: UK
Posts: 27
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Helinut - Absoloutely. Maybe a central control along the lines of ARCC Kinloss would help. It would make it easier for units to assist each other at busy times.. .. .There are issues surrounding the response of aircraft by ambulance controls. Motivation is sometimes from lack of ground resources, need to meet minimum response times or a mis-understanding of when an aircraft is most effective. . .. .Often the information given to the crews is very different to what has actually happened (not always controls fault). By the time you find out the multi-system trauma patient is actually a sprained ankle on a football pitch, 15 yds from an ambulance, then it's too late! It's your patient!. .. .I believe Cornish Air Amb (Helimed 01) charge the local ambulance trusts for innapropriate calls, thereby recovering charitable funds. Reports suggest it seems to work ok and the number of inappropriate calls have dropped.. .. .Big issue with lots of considerations....but I feel better for a little rant! Be interested to hear other views / ideas. Also, will we see a call-out protocol now that goverment money is involved?
I agree that a centralised control a la ARCC would be very beneficial and might stop ambulance control leaving SAR helicopters at the bottom of their callout lists. A multi casualty RTA often needs a big helicopter with the ability to carry more than one stretcher but the local Air Ambulance will always get called first (unless it's dark or the weather is sh*t) because the ambulance authority has to justify it's existence. Once the Air Ambulance has either not been able to get there or has it's one casualty, then and only then do they think of using military SAR helos. The poor old patient's golden hour is meanwhile ticking away.. .This sounds like a rant and maybe it is but the air ambulance is not a panacea for meeting government response time targets and I do resent the press attributing jobs done by SAR helos (medevacs, ECMO, multiple casualty transfers etc) to the local air ambulances just to keep their profile high. This is not intended to denigrate waht the air ambulance guys and girls do but letting the NHS foot the bill for air ambulances whilst the military SAR force teeters on the brink of civilianisation/collapse is at best an inequality.. .Rant over!
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: UK
Posts: 27
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Crab@.... .. .I am in favour of whatever benefits the patient and no single resource is going to be appropriate every time. Between air ambs, police helis and SAR we must have it pretty well covered.. .. .I don't belive amb controls leave SAR at the bottom of the list simply to raise the profile or justify the existence of air ambs. Most controllers have little or no training in responding aircraft and would not know which was the best reponse. We often find they don't think heli at all. Definitely not ideal and we are constantly talking to the controls in an attempt to rectify the situation.. .. .We do our best to get to jobs in all weathers (most of our pilots are ex-SAR / Military) and we will return to a scene for trapped patients etc.. But yes, when I'm faced with 4 multi-system trauma patients and only two stretchers I would have no problems with seeing a big yellow thing arrive!!. .. .We have a lot of respect for the work that SAR does and if you are not getting due credit then that is wrong. For what it's worth, if the press are running a heli story that is not us then we put them straight. We have been gazumped ourselves a few times and it is annoying!. .. .As for funding. The goverment money is welcome but is a long way from complete NHS funding. The NHS has a lot of areas to fund which are just as deserving as air ambs. We understand that and are very gratefull to Joe Public who continues to keep us in the air after 12 or so years. Not forgetting keeping MRT's on the hill and Lifeboats at sea. Surely you don't begrudge us a rise from the £0.00 we normally receive?. .. .Edited so TeeS doesn't give me a hard time over my spelling (...I know i before e and all that!). . . . <small>[ 29 March 2002, 22:58: Message edited by: Push To Shock ]</small>
Push,. .Having reread my own post it does seem a little anti Air Ambulance which it is not meant to be - I agree the controllers need to be made more aware of helicopters and how to use them. We regularly fly ambulance crews on training sorties to help them understand what we can and can't do, maybe the controllers should be given the same opportunity with your helicopters.. .Sadly the SAR force is having to fight off moves to contractorise us, possibly giving all maritime SAR to the Coastguards. If this happens, because the powers that be think that Military SAR isn't military enough, then all the inland stuff will have to be done by Air Ambulance including the night, poor wx jobs(I don't think air ambulance crews are allowed to hovertaxi up hills in cloud on goggles). . .Overall this would probably lead to a reduction in service to the patients but possibly some more air ambulances with CAA clearance to use bigger aircraft fitted with winches and using NVG and FLIR. . .No I don't mind your pay rise, if the money was better I'd probably jump ship myself!
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: UK
Posts: 27
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Crab@,. .. .It would be a sad day if we lost the military SAR fleet. Yes, we would like to expand the air amb role, fly at night etc... but I can't see any benefit in attempting to take over job that you are already doing well. How does it go? 'If it 'aint broke, don't fix it!'. .. .Hope things work out for the best for the SAR fleet.
Thread Starter
I can't help feeling that it all comes down to "horses for courses"- 95% of Ambulance work is best done by road vehicles, 4% will benefit from an Air Ambulance and 1% will require the additional facilities of a full SAR equipped helicopter. (The numbers are made up just like all the best statistics.) The dividing lines are blurred but you would not want a Seaking landing in front of Mrs. Giggings house in the middle of Wolverhampton so that a trauma surgeon can sort out her blocked catheter any more than you would request a road ambulance to come and winch an injured climber off a rock face with their tow rope. The occasions are few, but I have never hesitated to call out the resources of SAR units when required.
Best wishes to you all, no matter what you fly.
Best wishes to you all, no matter what you fly.
Join Date: May 2000
Location: uk
Posts: 268
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Crab - I think that your outlook for military SAR is a little gloomy given that air ambulances are forbidden by the CAA from fitting winches and from involving themselves in any form of SAR. Also the fact that they are public transport aircraft severely limits their night capability and confines them to operating from a few approved HLS only. Military SAR has always, and will always be under the microscope as by definition military aid to civilians is an abuse of assets. However, there has just been a review of SAR helicopter coverage that recommended no change to the existing structure and I would be v.suprised if anything (even the SABRE project) changed in the short term.
By the way, the Coastguard ALREADY have responsibility for ALL maritime SAR and have done for many years. Military SAR involvement in maritime incidents is only ever at the invite/request of the Coastguard. On a similar note, all of your overland SAR is at the request of the police and the only one that the RAF actually has any formal responsibility for is aviation SAR (plus all military work)
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Good luck against those elephants
By the way, the Coastguard ALREADY have responsibility for ALL maritime SAR and have done for many years. Military SAR involvement in maritime incidents is only ever at the invite/request of the Coastguard. On a similar note, all of your overland SAR is at the request of the police and the only one that the RAF actually has any formal responsibility for is aviation SAR (plus all military work)
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Good luck against those elephants
Max Con,
Thankyou for teaching me to suck eggs - I already know who is responsible for what in the UKSRR - my point is that if Military SAR is withdrawn (and yes this is a possibility), who will pick up the slack? As you say, the CAA would have to change it's tune on rules governing air ambulances and the Coastguard would need to aquire a fleet of helicopyers and crews to cover all the maritime and coastal stuff.
The public thinks military SAR is great, the brass in the military don't know enough about what we do and point out that only 2 or 3 % of our jobs are military in nature (jet mates just don't bang out as much as they used to). Couple this with an ageing fleet of knackered aircraft and an inability to deploy in support of military operations around the globe, and you have a big target for the bean counters who will rightly point out that SAR cover in the UK is the responsibility of the DTLR and not MOD.
The possible answers? -1. more money and a new aircraft plus a formal agreement between Govt and MoD regarding SAR (chances of this? ).
2. A PPI between MCA (coastguard) and MoD with COMO (contractor owned military operated) aircraft.
3. MoD buys power by the hour to sustain it's present capability and relieve the pressure on the Sea King fleet.
4. Continue as we are and wait until the situation is really desperate until we do something about it and continue to pay for upgrades to the Sea King as it rapidly approaches it's out of service date.
5. Take the 28 Sqn Merlins and paint them yellow, using them for long range SAR from certain flights to again ease the squeeze on the SK fleet.
You choose or come up with something better, one thing is for sure - something will have to change (apart from me getting the sack).
Thankyou for teaching me to suck eggs - I already know who is responsible for what in the UKSRR - my point is that if Military SAR is withdrawn (and yes this is a possibility), who will pick up the slack? As you say, the CAA would have to change it's tune on rules governing air ambulances and the Coastguard would need to aquire a fleet of helicopyers and crews to cover all the maritime and coastal stuff.
The public thinks military SAR is great, the brass in the military don't know enough about what we do and point out that only 2 or 3 % of our jobs are military in nature (jet mates just don't bang out as much as they used to). Couple this with an ageing fleet of knackered aircraft and an inability to deploy in support of military operations around the globe, and you have a big target for the bean counters who will rightly point out that SAR cover in the UK is the responsibility of the DTLR and not MOD.
The possible answers? -1. more money and a new aircraft plus a formal agreement between Govt and MoD regarding SAR (chances of this? ).
2. A PPI between MCA (coastguard) and MoD with COMO (contractor owned military operated) aircraft.
3. MoD buys power by the hour to sustain it's present capability and relieve the pressure on the Sea King fleet.
4. Continue as we are and wait until the situation is really desperate until we do something about it and continue to pay for upgrades to the Sea King as it rapidly approaches it's out of service date.
5. Take the 28 Sqn Merlins and paint them yellow, using them for long range SAR from certain flights to again ease the squeeze on the SK fleet.
You choose or come up with something better, one thing is for sure - something will have to change (apart from me getting the sack).
