NSW EMS (NGO or Private operator)
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: no fixed abode
Posts: 14
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I for one am getting sick of hearing statements coming out of NSW EMS operators ( careflight inparticular) about the reduction of safety there will be in the new operation.
The people at the coal face will be australian and CHC's check and training program has worked well up untill now so why would it be expected to fail because of one new contract.
THE PEOPLE WHO ARE BAGGING SAFETY ARE BAGGING AUSTRALIAN PILOTS AND CREW!
If these people think no one can do the job as well or better than them then maybe the industry is better off without them.
Good performance = job security, especially for companies!
The people at the coal face will be australian and CHC's check and training program has worked well up untill now so why would it be expected to fail because of one new contract.
THE PEOPLE WHO ARE BAGGING SAFETY ARE BAGGING AUSTRALIAN PILOTS AND CREW!
If these people think no one can do the job as well or better than them then maybe the industry is better off without them.
Good performance = job security, especially for companies!
someplace,
I understand your frustration and emotion, these are very emotive times. A lot of crap will be said on both sides of the fence - but as I tried to say above, lets not personalise it here on a "Professional" bulletin site - lets leave that for the spin doctors.
I am obviously NOT speaking for CareFlight at all, I am speaking from a purely personal standpoint. It appears that CareFlight have not attacked CHC, and CHC have not attacked CareFlight - that sort of stuff has only happened here and I could categorically say that NONE of it has been sanctioned by either organisation. A quick review of this thread reveals a continued attack on CareFlight, and barely a personalised comment on CHC personnel beyond stating they are a multi national.
So I can only assume you are drawing your inferences from that most accurate source of all - the media.
The safety concerns voiced by the doctor group are actually related to the differences between a commercial arrangement where different crew members answer to different managements V an integrated model where all members operate under one system.
NOT CHC V CAREFLIGHT.
NO ISSUE ABOUT THE SAFETY OF CHC CREWMEMBERS OR THEIR ABILITIES HAS EVER BEEN EXPRESSED BY CAREFLIGHT. Or anyone anywhere in this thread BTW.
It has only been whipped up by these sorts of emotions.
At the end of every tender process like this there are winners and losers, and it would be fair to say that a majority of losers will question the tender process and system if a loss threatens their very existance. The larger the threat to their existance, the harder the fight: human nature!
That process is especially reasonable in any democratic system such as ours where government awards such large contracts, and we in the industry have seen it time and again (Canadian Cormorant, Australian ARH, etc, etc, etc).
Such process is no reason to emotively attack the loser, rather it is an opportunity for the government to demonstrate the logic, sound basis, and integrity of the outcome, and thus demonstrate to the governed population that they are acting in the best interests of those who elected them. Losers have a right to process integrity.
I am convinced that the NSW Government have forseen and prepared for the reactions, and will now begin demonstrating the integrity of their decision.
I'd say that it is unlikely that their process of review and justification will involve any of the crap we write here on the 'prune. As I said before, all we will achieve is personal insult.
I understand your frustration and emotion, these are very emotive times. A lot of crap will be said on both sides of the fence - but as I tried to say above, lets not personalise it here on a "Professional" bulletin site - lets leave that for the spin doctors.
I am obviously NOT speaking for CareFlight at all, I am speaking from a purely personal standpoint. It appears that CareFlight have not attacked CHC, and CHC have not attacked CareFlight - that sort of stuff has only happened here and I could categorically say that NONE of it has been sanctioned by either organisation. A quick review of this thread reveals a continued attack on CareFlight, and barely a personalised comment on CHC personnel beyond stating they are a multi national.
So I can only assume you are drawing your inferences from that most accurate source of all - the media.
The safety concerns voiced by the doctor group are actually related to the differences between a commercial arrangement where different crew members answer to different managements V an integrated model where all members operate under one system.
NOT CHC V CAREFLIGHT.
NO ISSUE ABOUT THE SAFETY OF CHC CREWMEMBERS OR THEIR ABILITIES HAS EVER BEEN EXPRESSED BY CAREFLIGHT. Or anyone anywhere in this thread BTW.
It has only been whipped up by these sorts of emotions.
At the end of every tender process like this there are winners and losers, and it would be fair to say that a majority of losers will question the tender process and system if a loss threatens their very existance. The larger the threat to their existance, the harder the fight: human nature!
That process is especially reasonable in any democratic system such as ours where government awards such large contracts, and we in the industry have seen it time and again (Canadian Cormorant, Australian ARH, etc, etc, etc).
Such process is no reason to emotively attack the loser, rather it is an opportunity for the government to demonstrate the logic, sound basis, and integrity of the outcome, and thus demonstrate to the governed population that they are acting in the best interests of those who elected them. Losers have a right to process integrity.
I am convinced that the NSW Government have forseen and prepared for the reactions, and will now begin demonstrating the integrity of their decision.
I'd say that it is unlikely that their process of review and justification will involve any of the crap we write here on the 'prune. As I said before, all we will achieve is personal insult.
Join Date: May 2006
Location: Perth
Age: 70
Posts: 14
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Helmet Fire
Did NGO’s lead the way in the development of the EMS System; well of course yes, it was the NGO that commenced the first helicopter rescue service in Australia.
Did NGO’s lead the way or did the customer provide the pathway for these operators to follow as the customers required changed. As other systems in other states evolved, so did the evolution of NSW EMS helicopter system? The customer required machines that could transport the rescue crews that they deemed to be appropriate for the task; this was also influenced by equipment requirements and other requirements, as did the capability to provide services during nocturnal hours. So yes NSW NGO’s were at the forefront of this change process however to make a bold statement that they were responsible for this change could be strongly argued. I would say that it was a joint venture, would this change have occurred if a commercial operator was involved? who knows, however if a customer contracts a company to provide services then generally that service is provided or the contract is breached. Although I never did make a statement that NGO’s never made change during their involvement. I did make a statement How long did it take the NGO’s to provide the services that they were contracted to?
An example of this could be IFR,as highlighted in earlier posts by FATRAT he implied that Westpac were slow in providing single pilot IFR, and we all know about Careflights poor IFR record of availability.
As for the slander attack on Careflight and Westpac, well I do not apologise, although I don’t believe it to be slander at all I see it as adjusting the misleading information provided by the spin machine. In earlier posts I predicted the media and political manipulation that would occur if a commercial operator were selected. If you go back to the prior contract tender the NGO’s were ruthless in their attack on Lloyds helicopter. Careflight is an animal that is on a rampage; they have prostituted themselves and will undertake any smear campaign to survive so I do not apologise for aggressively attacking their propaganda.
Apologies, I have used the world Careflight and Westpac in describing these companies and yes sadly this has probably placed dispersions on the capabilities of the individuals that fly on these aircraft. I express my apologies to those crew that have taken my posts as an attack on the individual capability and professionalism. When I have used the terms Westpac and Careflight they have been directed towards the management that has let these individuals down.
I have never singled out any individual or individual groups within these organizations. I am not in a position to assess the credibility of individuals or the job role that they perform, however I do certainly question the ethics of the organizations that they work for and question the ethic and there suitability for charity status.
Careflight I believe should be investigated for the content of their media releases and their alignment with certain political members. The politicians that have been lobbying for them over the loss of this tender process need to be exposed and their suitability to hold a political office needs to be questioned. (Media boys out there, this would make a sensational story.) If careflight were a listed company would there not be an investigation into the misleading information provided to their stockholders and the market place.
In closing Helmet fire, I suggest that you have another look at both the Careflight and NSW ambulance website, and really assess who is correct. Someone is lying, if this is the NSW Ambulance Service then swift and server action is required to sever the individual’s responsible. If it is Careflight then the Public deserve the truth to be replicated on the Careflight website and an official investigation into there suitability to maintain their charitable status.
Eagle 86
As I said above I have never question any individual CAPABILITY although I can see how these guys would see this. I DO NOT KNOW THE MAN HOWEVER HIS REPUTATION AND HIS ACHIEVEMENTS SPEAK FOR THEMSELVES as do the actions of all these aviators involved.
Stay SAFE and good luck in the future.
Did NGO’s lead the way in the development of the EMS System; well of course yes, it was the NGO that commenced the first helicopter rescue service in Australia.
Did NGO’s lead the way or did the customer provide the pathway for these operators to follow as the customers required changed. As other systems in other states evolved, so did the evolution of NSW EMS helicopter system? The customer required machines that could transport the rescue crews that they deemed to be appropriate for the task; this was also influenced by equipment requirements and other requirements, as did the capability to provide services during nocturnal hours. So yes NSW NGO’s were at the forefront of this change process however to make a bold statement that they were responsible for this change could be strongly argued. I would say that it was a joint venture, would this change have occurred if a commercial operator was involved? who knows, however if a customer contracts a company to provide services then generally that service is provided or the contract is breached. Although I never did make a statement that NGO’s never made change during their involvement. I did make a statement How long did it take the NGO’s to provide the services that they were contracted to?
An example of this could be IFR,as highlighted in earlier posts by FATRAT he implied that Westpac were slow in providing single pilot IFR, and we all know about Careflights poor IFR record of availability.
As for the slander attack on Careflight and Westpac, well I do not apologise, although I don’t believe it to be slander at all I see it as adjusting the misleading information provided by the spin machine. In earlier posts I predicted the media and political manipulation that would occur if a commercial operator were selected. If you go back to the prior contract tender the NGO’s were ruthless in their attack on Lloyds helicopter. Careflight is an animal that is on a rampage; they have prostituted themselves and will undertake any smear campaign to survive so I do not apologise for aggressively attacking their propaganda.
Apologies, I have used the world Careflight and Westpac in describing these companies and yes sadly this has probably placed dispersions on the capabilities of the individuals that fly on these aircraft. I express my apologies to those crew that have taken my posts as an attack on the individual capability and professionalism. When I have used the terms Westpac and Careflight they have been directed towards the management that has let these individuals down.
I have never singled out any individual or individual groups within these organizations. I am not in a position to assess the credibility of individuals or the job role that they perform, however I do certainly question the ethics of the organizations that they work for and question the ethic and there suitability for charity status.
Careflight I believe should be investigated for the content of their media releases and their alignment with certain political members. The politicians that have been lobbying for them over the loss of this tender process need to be exposed and their suitability to hold a political office needs to be questioned. (Media boys out there, this would make a sensational story.) If careflight were a listed company would there not be an investigation into the misleading information provided to their stockholders and the market place.
In closing Helmet fire, I suggest that you have another look at both the Careflight and NSW ambulance website, and really assess who is correct. Someone is lying, if this is the NSW Ambulance Service then swift and server action is required to sever the individual’s responsible. If it is Careflight then the Public deserve the truth to be replicated on the Careflight website and an official investigation into there suitability to maintain their charitable status.
Eagle 86
As I said above I have never question any individual CAPABILITY although I can see how these guys would see this. I DO NOT KNOW THE MAN HOWEVER HIS REPUTATION AND HIS ACHIEVEMENTS SPEAK FOR THEMSELVES as do the actions of all these aviators involved.
Stay SAFE and good luck in the future.
Last edited by sand blaster; 14th Dec 2006 at 08:44.
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: no fixed abode
Posts: 14
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
eagle 86 - yes I do remember Mackay and it was very sad. The QLD Gov recognised it's contractual short falls and have addressed them in a very responsible way. Trot back through NSW SAR/EMS history and you will find it hasn't been all peaches and cream.
Helmet Fire - any statement that preaches a reduction of safety due to a new operator is an attack on the aircrew. People in the NGO's are premoting this line on national TV and national talk back radio as often as they can. They are not afraid of having to answer to different management they are afraid of having to answer to ANYONE because they have built these empire's and do not want their kingdoms to crumble.
NGO's have done a great job in the past but the decision is in - STOP SLAGGING AUSTRALIAN AIRCREW.
Helmet Fire - any statement that preaches a reduction of safety due to a new operator is an attack on the aircrew. People in the NGO's are premoting this line on national TV and national talk back radio as often as they can. They are not afraid of having to answer to different management they are afraid of having to answer to ANYONE because they have built these empire's and do not want their kingdoms to crumble.
NGO's have done a great job in the past but the decision is in - STOP SLAGGING AUSTRALIAN AIRCREW.
Guest
Join Date: Oct 2005
Posts: 64
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
"yes I do remember Mackay and it was very sad. The QLD Gov recognised it's contractual short falls and have addressed them in a very responsible way. "
Someplace,
I don't think the QLD gov has done much, you might find that in Mackay there are still 4 organisations flying in the one machine. CHC Helicopters (Australia) supplies machines, pilot and engineer, CQRESQ supplies crewman and admin, QLD Ambulance the Paramedic and RACQ CareFlight the doctor.
I do hope they are all on the one page, but as there is a government organisation involved I doubt it.
Someplace,
I don't think the QLD gov has done much, you might find that in Mackay there are still 4 organisations flying in the one machine. CHC Helicopters (Australia) supplies machines, pilot and engineer, CQRESQ supplies crewman and admin, QLD Ambulance the Paramedic and RACQ CareFlight the doctor.
I do hope they are all on the one page, but as there is a government organisation involved I doubt it.
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: Sydney
Posts: 1
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
A case (perhaps) for CareFlight
In recent years CareFlight have reportedly been receiving approximately AUD$190K/mth to provide a single-pilot IFR BK117 on 24 hour operations at Westmead, and a 10-hour per day A119 Koala in Orange. From 1995 to 2003 CareFlight provided a Bell 412HP (with EP engine performance) instead of the BK117. The current funding comprises about 30% of the total cost of running CareFlight. Rumour has it that CHC are charging about $180K /mth for one B412 in Wollongong on day-only operations, although I am not sure of the arrangements for flying hour charges.
The above funding for CareFlight does not include any flying hour charges until 600 hours have been flown. After that CareFlight are apparently entitled to charge about $1500/hr for the BK117 (previously Bell412), and $450/hr for the A119 Koala. By any measure these hourly charges are lean for these aircraft.
CareFlight, at times, have been unable to provide a back-up aircraft during maintenance, but some could argue that that is the price Ambulance have had to pay for such a discounted operation. What aircraft, spare aircraft and crew would CHC provide in Wollongong for $60K/mth?? If NSW Ambulance had been willing, over the last 10 years, to pay CareFlight what they pay CHC Wollongong I imagine the practicalities of having a back-up aircraft becomes easier.
CareFlight did have an extended period of not being single-pilot IFR. They had leased their Kawasaki BK117 on the understanding that it was single-pilot IFR, and it had been working as a single-pilot IFR aircraft on a number of previous contracts. Is it the fault of CareFlight that the aircraft turned out to have retreating blade stall problems due to Kawasaki not applying the same Vne, or maximum collective stop maintenance procedures, as are applied by Eurocopter for their BK117s? Some could say that CareFlight should be congratulated on identifying a world-wide fleet problem that Kawasaki have now sought to rectify (and was published in CASA Flight Safety magazine). I guess this does demonstrate lack of depth, but what do you expect for minimal funding. How many other operators would have suffered the cost in time, effort, and reputation to fix this problem? Or would they have lived with the occasional exciting occurrence and continued on regardless? CareFlight had the option to ignore it, and keep providing the “service” or to play it safe and fix it.
On to the recent tender: CareFlight apparently provided the Ambulance Service with a bid option which included the same aircraft as CHC, so rumours about a better equipped service seem unfounded. I imagine the increased funding levels all around will ensure that a dedicated spare aircraft is available at all times. The value of the CareFlight bid included over $50-$100 mill (depending who you believe) worth of guaranteed corporate sponsorship, which is likely to make it significantly less than the reported $230 mill total price being offered by CHC. No doubt other sectors of NSW Health could do with that $50 mill.
Apparently CareFlight also expressed some interest in sourcing the A109S Grand for operations in Sydney. This makes sense if you consider that the majority of their missions are probably within 80nm of Sydney, which quick calculations indicate can be done (out and back) by the Grand with IFR reserves plus 30 min holding fuel. No doubt this option would have brought the price down again as it would be a lot cheaper to run a Grand than an AW139. Such an aircraft would also allow operations into urban landing sites without on-ground support (this is currently being done using the CareFlight Head Injury Retrieval Trial A109E, and is the method used by London HEMS, German ADAC and many others). Having only large aircraft in Sydney will effectively eliminate these options.
EMS NGOs are often only able to raise sufficient funds to provide a bare bones service. This is evidenced all over Australia (and the world), and often results in aircraft and crews being pushed beyond their limits in order to fulfil a very challenging role. However, for many years CareFlight has provided a service over and above any contract or CASA minimums because they have both the will, and the fund-raising support to do so. This will be lost under a commercial contract because profit imperatives will never allow more money to be spent than is provided by the client. Examples of where CareFlight have gone the extra mile purely because the Chief Pilot decreed it, and because management supported it, include:
1. Transition to a single-pilot IFR Dauphin in 1988 when the requirement was only for VFR aircraft.
2. Moves to a Bell 412HP in 1995 when the contract only called for a BK117 standard of aircraft. Replacement of this with the BK117 in 2003 only came about because of financial pressure and Ambulance refusal to fund such a capable aircraft. Funny that one year later they were willing to fund a Bell 412 in Wollongong at a much higher price.
3. Dedicated IFR training flights every 90 days, regardless of IFR currency in the course of jobs.
4. Introduction of flight simulator training in 1995 leading to the use of CareFlight sim instructors, LOFT scenarios, and a local NSW database in 1999. This training always included the other front seat crewmember, the aircrewman. Such training has never been contracted.
5. Establishment of a rapid response helicopter as part of the Head Injury Retrieval Trial (HIRT) using a A109E Power. This was done without any support from Ambulance Service, but with full corporate funding. CareFlight are even required to pay the salaries of the Ambulance Service paramedics working on the helicopter!!
6. Establishment of the helipads.org website for the benefit of all NSW EMS operators. Ironically, CHC in Canberra embraced this!
7. Founding member of the Aviation Safety Network, a consortium of HEMS providers focusing on a fully integrated safety management system.
In the end it will be a crying shame for the NSW tax-payer, and for the aviation industry, if a progressive and innovative organisation like CareFlight are forced to close their doors. Apart from NVGs in the next year, there would have been many other things CareFlight could have added to industry standards and professionalism over the next ten years. Although CHC will do a solid job they will never seek the constant improvements that an adequately supported NGO can achieve for a lot less money.
With sadness!!
SPLOT
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: Australia
Posts: 1,957
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
HF :- "That doesn't even begin to illuminate the medical innovations that are equally impressive.
Not only did they do it for significantly less money than the market rate, they now face the end of thirty years of work with two weeks notice."
Necessity is the mother of all invention; look at the civvy invented particle separators as just one example. It’s ‘the bottom line’ which is relatively unique to commercial ops that is the main driver for and creates more “necessity” than most service people ever hear about.
Apart from that, I figured that I was reading a commendation for a unit citation, then as helmets second sentence in his quote above approached I caught sight of the number ten redwings all set to sink the boot in.
Then I figured well really the whole episode is just another OZ saga that we are sooooo good at. Cutting down the tall poppy! No discussion, no counselling, no revision of changed market demands, perceived or real, just kick-em-fair-in-the-guts.
eagle86:- "Just so there is no misunderstanding - the difficulty of Mil helo flying and the standards maintained outstrip the civvy world by miles - daylight is second."
With respect there mate, just a bit of a long bow here with this statement.
splot123
your posts seem to come and go a bit, perhaps they need farming in a different environmet, and around the sometimes used word "expectations"
Cheers Tet
Not only did they do it for significantly less money than the market rate, they now face the end of thirty years of work with two weeks notice."
Necessity is the mother of all invention; look at the civvy invented particle separators as just one example. It’s ‘the bottom line’ which is relatively unique to commercial ops that is the main driver for and creates more “necessity” than most service people ever hear about.
Apart from that, I figured that I was reading a commendation for a unit citation, then as helmets second sentence in his quote above approached I caught sight of the number ten redwings all set to sink the boot in.
Then I figured well really the whole episode is just another OZ saga that we are sooooo good at. Cutting down the tall poppy! No discussion, no counselling, no revision of changed market demands, perceived or real, just kick-em-fair-in-the-guts.
eagle86:- "Just so there is no misunderstanding - the difficulty of Mil helo flying and the standards maintained outstrip the civvy world by miles - daylight is second."
With respect there mate, just a bit of a long bow here with this statement.
splot123
your posts seem to come and go a bit, perhaps they need farming in a different environmet, and around the sometimes used word "expectations"
Cheers Tet
Someplace says:
what I said earlier was:
That is the extent of the comments by the doctors. It is a comment on management structures alone and it has nothing to do with aircrew. Nor CHC.
Please stop drawing other inferences and stirring the debate up.
any statement that preaches a reduction of safety due to a new operator is an attack on the aircrew
The safety concerns voiced by the doctor group are actually related to the differences between a commercial arrangement where different crew members answer to different managements V an integrated model where all members operate under one system.
Please stop drawing other inferences and stirring the debate up.
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: no fixed abode
Posts: 14
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
HF - It doesn't matter what the management structure is, the fact is the new contractor will be adhearing to the same maintanence and flight rules and reg's as everyone else in this country and the safety of the operation will come down to check and training and the companys attitude.
Like I said before the problem is not answering to different management groups it is having to answer to anyone at all.
The doctor group are promoting that line so people will listen to them, make no mistake they are being supported, driven and advised by more than just doctors, there are a whole range of people trying to protect there jobs. I have full confidence the doctors could do just as good if not a better job in a CHC machine as they are doing now if only they would give it a go with the right attitude.
Grab a hard hat - the empire is coming down!
Like I said before the problem is not answering to different management groups it is having to answer to anyone at all.
The doctor group are promoting that line so people will listen to them, make no mistake they are being supported, driven and advised by more than just doctors, there are a whole range of people trying to protect there jobs. I have full confidence the doctors could do just as good if not a better job in a CHC machine as they are doing now if only they would give it a go with the right attitude.
Grab a hard hat - the empire is coming down!
Guest
Join Date: Oct 2005
Posts: 64
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
As a past employee of CHC I know that the service provided will be top notch, however the same can't be said of NSW Health and Ambulance, they seem to have blown their bolt and spent all the dollars on the new machines and now have to go cap in hand to the public to pay for doctors and the medical gear to actually carry a patient.
Does that mean our state taxes become tax deductable as a donation?
I'd also like to see a 412 go faster and further than a Koala or Power.
Does that mean our state taxes become tax deductable as a donation?
I'd also like to see a 412 go faster and further than a Koala or Power.
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: ...in view of the 'Southern Cross' ...
Posts: 1,383
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Mmmm ...
Jim Irwin ... VH-AAL the "Angel of Mercy" also met its end at the hands of the politicians .... with perhaps a bit of help from the Vic Pol Airwing which re-established itself in the very early eighties and needed more for its pilots to do ????? (not to mention the very very very close ties that VicPol had with NSCA at the time!).
LHS ... perhaps the 412 though not as fast might carry more and remain servicable longer than the 109/119 ??
Cheers
Jim Irwin ... VH-AAL the "Angel of Mercy" also met its end at the hands of the politicians .... with perhaps a bit of help from the Vic Pol Airwing which re-established itself in the very early eighties and needed more for its pilots to do ????? (not to mention the very very very close ties that VicPol had with NSCA at the time!).
LHS ... perhaps the 412 though not as fast might carry more and remain servicable longer than the 109/119 ??
Cheers
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: hot & wet
Posts: 13
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
And the punches just keep cumin...
Is it true..... Care-flight's contract is being terminated at the end of December 2006, while Westpac continues until CHC contract commencement in April 2007.....
Anyone know the facts?
Surely all you guys havnt gone on Christmas break already... its not even on the front page anymore....
Anyone know the facts?
Surely all you guys havnt gone on Christmas break already... its not even on the front page anymore....
Join Date: May 2006
Location: Perth
Age: 70
Posts: 14
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Is Careflight for Real
Just for you Sundance76
Now we all know that I have been relentless in my questioning of Careflight Management and the method that they do business, however Mr Badham is now living in a world of fantasy have a read of some statements that he has made in media reports that are viewable on the Careflight web site.
Ambulance, police, fire and two rescue helicopters were alerted to the crash west of Wombeyan Caves just before 5 pm.
The mission was conducted by one of the CareFlight doctors who has been rejected from future support of patients by the State Government’s decision to axe CareFlight.
The State Government doesn’t want to continue the world best integrated medical-aviation crew system that CareFlight has pioneered in Australia – and which is regarded internationally as the best way to prevent crashes during difficult rescue missions when close crew teamwork is essential. Ian Badham Sunday, 17th December 2006, 8:30pm
"This attack by Ambulance Service of NSW has not only the potential to kill CareFlight but will see the costs of Compulsory Third Party Insurance and the long term health costs of caring for patients with severe head injuries blow out as patients are left without this live saving service. Ian Badham Friday, 15th December 2006, 1:46pm
Opposition Leader Peter Debnam said Liberal and National party candidates have launched a state-wide petition to save the NRMA CareFlight and Westpac Lifesaver helicopters. Ian Badham Friday, 15th December 2006, 11:54am
Questions
· Who Alerted the helicopters of the accident?
· Why is this Doctor rejected from future support by the Government?
· Don’t other helicopter rescue services throughout Australia, Canada and other parts of the world work closely together? Or are they all inferior?
· How in the hell is Compulsory third party green slips related to the helicopter contract.
· How much do the Liberal and National party Know?
· Who’s helicopter was on the accident site with Careflight? And what did they do? Were they safe or did they crash?
Fact
All doctors including the Careflight doctors have the opportunity to work on the CHC Australia helicopters. In NSW, on any given day Careflight provides two doctors out of a total of nine doctors on helicopters. We hope these doctors will work with us but if they don’t we have experienced medical retrieval doctors who have indicated they want to join the new helicopter service. Services to the community of NSW will not be compromised. In addition the crew, pilots and engineers of the current operators have the opportunity to move across to work as part of CHC Australia. http://www.ambulance.nsw.gov.au/area...helicopter.pdf
Like I have said before someone has been lying and the stories are getting better all the time. Is it Ambulance or is it Careflight?
What of NRMA’s role in this, are they condoning this lying and false reporting to the public can NRMA be trusted. Change your insurance provider as NRMA Green slips are rising get a cheaper quote use your money to protest against this increase, or is it the empire of Careflight that has hood-winked us all for so long. What of the politicians supporting Careflight, Mr Debnam will this blow up in his face we know the opposition health minister talks to her Care-Bears for policy advice but Mr Debnam have you investigated this at all? Sounds like policy on the run. I only hope that you get professional advice before you make any other decisions in regards to NSW future.
As for the rest of the EMS crews out there don’t take the insults that are being handed out by the management of Careflight to heart and please don’t take it out on the air Crews they have to put up with this B*ll S**t personally. However, feel free to write your objections to NRMA Careflight Management.
At least Westpac boys (management) are demonstrating public spirit and professionalism if todays paper is to be believed, anyone know if the air crew communicate with their doctor and ambulance officers on mission? Or CHC do they work as a team?
Must go, cricket to watch.
Now we all know that I have been relentless in my questioning of Careflight Management and the method that they do business, however Mr Badham is now living in a world of fantasy have a read of some statements that he has made in media reports that are viewable on the Careflight web site.
Ambulance, police, fire and two rescue helicopters were alerted to the crash west of Wombeyan Caves just before 5 pm.
The mission was conducted by one of the CareFlight doctors who has been rejected from future support of patients by the State Government’s decision to axe CareFlight.
The State Government doesn’t want to continue the world best integrated medical-aviation crew system that CareFlight has pioneered in Australia – and which is regarded internationally as the best way to prevent crashes during difficult rescue missions when close crew teamwork is essential. Ian Badham Sunday, 17th December 2006, 8:30pm
"This attack by Ambulance Service of NSW has not only the potential to kill CareFlight but will see the costs of Compulsory Third Party Insurance and the long term health costs of caring for patients with severe head injuries blow out as patients are left without this live saving service. Ian Badham Friday, 15th December 2006, 1:46pm
Opposition Leader Peter Debnam said Liberal and National party candidates have launched a state-wide petition to save the NRMA CareFlight and Westpac Lifesaver helicopters. Ian Badham Friday, 15th December 2006, 11:54am
Questions
· Who Alerted the helicopters of the accident?
· Why is this Doctor rejected from future support by the Government?
· Don’t other helicopter rescue services throughout Australia, Canada and other parts of the world work closely together? Or are they all inferior?
· How in the hell is Compulsory third party green slips related to the helicopter contract.
· How much do the Liberal and National party Know?
· Who’s helicopter was on the accident site with Careflight? And what did they do? Were they safe or did they crash?
Fact
All doctors including the Careflight doctors have the opportunity to work on the CHC Australia helicopters. In NSW, on any given day Careflight provides two doctors out of a total of nine doctors on helicopters. We hope these doctors will work with us but if they don’t we have experienced medical retrieval doctors who have indicated they want to join the new helicopter service. Services to the community of NSW will not be compromised. In addition the crew, pilots and engineers of the current operators have the opportunity to move across to work as part of CHC Australia. http://www.ambulance.nsw.gov.au/area...helicopter.pdf
Like I have said before someone has been lying and the stories are getting better all the time. Is it Ambulance or is it Careflight?
What of NRMA’s role in this, are they condoning this lying and false reporting to the public can NRMA be trusted. Change your insurance provider as NRMA Green slips are rising get a cheaper quote use your money to protest against this increase, or is it the empire of Careflight that has hood-winked us all for so long. What of the politicians supporting Careflight, Mr Debnam will this blow up in his face we know the opposition health minister talks to her Care-Bears for policy advice but Mr Debnam have you investigated this at all? Sounds like policy on the run. I only hope that you get professional advice before you make any other decisions in regards to NSW future.
As for the rest of the EMS crews out there don’t take the insults that are being handed out by the management of Careflight to heart and please don’t take it out on the air Crews they have to put up with this B*ll S**t personally. However, feel free to write your objections to NRMA Careflight Management.
At least Westpac boys (management) are demonstrating public spirit and professionalism if todays paper is to be believed, anyone know if the air crew communicate with their doctor and ambulance officers on mission? Or CHC do they work as a team?
Must go, cricket to watch.
Last edited by sand blaster; 18th Dec 2006 at 05:27.