Injured Woman refused air lift by HEMS and dies
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: Here and there...
Age: 58
Posts: 854
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Genghis,
Absolutely right. If the pilot was wrong or stuffed it up and crashed then by all means indulge in the american national pasttime and sue.
I feel strongly that it all boils down to the driver being criminally irresponsible in not wearing her seatbelt, and if it did not fit her, then being WILFULLY disobedient of the laws in place at the time.
If I was the judge on this one I would toss it out with costs to the family for wasting court time and putting a necessary service (the EMS) in a negative spotlight to appease their egos and to assuage their embarrasment.
Absolutely right. If the pilot was wrong or stuffed it up and crashed then by all means indulge in the american national pasttime and sue.
I feel strongly that it all boils down to the driver being criminally irresponsible in not wearing her seatbelt, and if it did not fit her, then being WILFULLY disobedient of the laws in place at the time.
If I was the judge on this one I would toss it out with costs to the family for wasting court time and putting a necessary service (the EMS) in a negative spotlight to appease their egos and to assuage their embarrasment.
Thread Starter
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: By the A&P
Posts: 147
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
When one mentions aircraft performance, one must also wonder "would the SOPs of an aircraft large enough to carry her allow said aircraft to use that LZ?" Everything's a tradeoff...
Moderator
I shall lend my voice of support to those who correctly consider the implications of flying an oversize person who cannot be restrained/supported/carried within the limits of the approved design.
I do not know the capacity of the stretcher installation of the helicopter in discussion. I would not be surprised, though, to be told that the maximum capacity is less than the mass of the intended patient describe here. Every design has intended limitations. These are the best compromise between the need for capability, and the cost of excess capability, which would go largely unused. The customer specifies the requirements of the job, the designer makes it work safely, and the regulator finds compliance with the prevailing requirements and issues an approval of the design.
This process assures that pilots can safely do the job without having to worry about suddenly becoming test pilots. Funny though, that even with a design requirement of 170 pounds per occupant for nearly all (North American anyway) certified aircraft, and the resulting reality that design compliance with the restraint requirements may not have been shown for heavier occupants, society seems willing to ask the pilot to overload the aircraft by filling the seats with heavier occupants. We would not think to ask the pilot to carry a greater number of occupants than the aircraft is approved to carry, so why is there an outcry when a pilot declines to carry more pounds of occupant than was approved?
There was a Canadian Cessna Caravan crash, in which the excess mass of all of the occupants of the aircraft was cited as a major contributing factor to unintended overloading, and the resulting total fatal crash.
A baggage net at the back of the cabin has a maximum capacity to assure that it will restrain the contents under crash loads. The pilot is not allowed to exceed that limitation, which was imposed by the designer or approving authority. Society would criticize a pilot who overloaded there. Why then would society ask the pilot to exceed the capacity of occupant restraints? It's probably the pilot who will be squashed if the overweight occupant comes loose in the crash!
If overweight people want to fly (in any aircraft), they should be prepared to pay the cost to travel safely, that is what they expect, isn't it? That could be as cheap as buying an extra seat on an airliner, or paying the additional cost to approve air ambulance helicopters with greater capacity, just in case they need it one day! Air carriers charge for overweight baggage don't they? Why is a person's excess mass exempt from this reasonable approach?
If, following the second crash of the day, you asked the overweight patient to cover the cost the damaged helicopter, because the pilot tried, but couldn't manage to fly her, would she be willing to pay?
Our society offers an amazing array of products and services. If a person's physical charteristics make it not possible for them to fit within the limitations of certain of those products and services, is it the responsibility of society in general to make the additional accomodations? Our society has spent many fortunes designing, testing and installing safety systems. If a person chooses not to use a simple system (seat belt), is it the responsibility of society to pay the cost to clean up the mess? Was this overweight person operating the vehicle within it's design limitations? Road vehicles have maximum capacity too! (or did she exceed the lateral C of G limits, and hence the rollover?)
The pilot's made the right decision - do it that way every time crew! That's what those of us who approved the design you are flying intended!
Safe flying....
Pilot DAR
I do not know the capacity of the stretcher installation of the helicopter in discussion. I would not be surprised, though, to be told that the maximum capacity is less than the mass of the intended patient describe here. Every design has intended limitations. These are the best compromise between the need for capability, and the cost of excess capability, which would go largely unused. The customer specifies the requirements of the job, the designer makes it work safely, and the regulator finds compliance with the prevailing requirements and issues an approval of the design.
This process assures that pilots can safely do the job without having to worry about suddenly becoming test pilots. Funny though, that even with a design requirement of 170 pounds per occupant for nearly all (North American anyway) certified aircraft, and the resulting reality that design compliance with the restraint requirements may not have been shown for heavier occupants, society seems willing to ask the pilot to overload the aircraft by filling the seats with heavier occupants. We would not think to ask the pilot to carry a greater number of occupants than the aircraft is approved to carry, so why is there an outcry when a pilot declines to carry more pounds of occupant than was approved?
There was a Canadian Cessna Caravan crash, in which the excess mass of all of the occupants of the aircraft was cited as a major contributing factor to unintended overloading, and the resulting total fatal crash.
A baggage net at the back of the cabin has a maximum capacity to assure that it will restrain the contents under crash loads. The pilot is not allowed to exceed that limitation, which was imposed by the designer or approving authority. Society would criticize a pilot who overloaded there. Why then would society ask the pilot to exceed the capacity of occupant restraints? It's probably the pilot who will be squashed if the overweight occupant comes loose in the crash!
If overweight people want to fly (in any aircraft), they should be prepared to pay the cost to travel safely, that is what they expect, isn't it? That could be as cheap as buying an extra seat on an airliner, or paying the additional cost to approve air ambulance helicopters with greater capacity, just in case they need it one day! Air carriers charge for overweight baggage don't they? Why is a person's excess mass exempt from this reasonable approach?
If, following the second crash of the day, you asked the overweight patient to cover the cost the damaged helicopter, because the pilot tried, but couldn't manage to fly her, would she be willing to pay?
Our society offers an amazing array of products and services. If a person's physical charteristics make it not possible for them to fit within the limitations of certain of those products and services, is it the responsibility of society in general to make the additional accomodations? Our society has spent many fortunes designing, testing and installing safety systems. If a person chooses not to use a simple system (seat belt), is it the responsibility of society to pay the cost to clean up the mess? Was this overweight person operating the vehicle within it's design limitations? Road vehicles have maximum capacity too! (or did she exceed the lateral C of G limits, and hence the rollover?)
The pilot's made the right decision - do it that way every time crew! That's what those of us who approved the design you are flying intended!
Safe flying....
Pilot DAR
But as a rule, if the average customer gets bigger then as an industry we need to provide a bigger vehicle.
I doubt she would have been able to get a regular seatbelt around her body at 400lb. It is possible to buy extenders that add a foot or two but her sheer bulk may well have been the reason why she wasn't buckled up.
Was this overweight person operating the vehicle within it's design limitations? Road vehicles have maximum capacity too! (or did she exceed the lateral C of G limits, and hence the rollover?)
Personally I would apportion the blame equally between McDonalds/Burger King/KFC for providing fast food of incredibly high calorific value (i:e fatty food) at unbelieveably low price to a vulnerable American public
Many are in a hurry, cant cook, off to work to survive and need the quick shot of food.
Others have nothing to do, watch the tube and eat
If people choose to overeat junk food, that's their choice, but they need to understand that being grossly obese will mean that they can't take part in certain activities, whether it's a funfair ride, a cinema seat...or being transported rapidly to hospital in a helicopter which is more than adequate for normal-sized people.
Trying to punish the EMS crew for their safe and sensible decision is disgusting.
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: USA
Age: 55
Posts: 305
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
TorqueOfTheDevil, I detect a hint of resentment towards fat people in your post, which can be summarized as: "if you're such a self-control lacking slob that you can barely fit your fat arse inside your crummy, poorly maintained car anymore, then veer off the road because the view outside the windshield is blocked by all the candy wrappers lying on your dash, you deserve to be left by the roadside." Or to paraphrase Marie Antoinette: "Let them eat fruit."
I know it hurts to be a healthy, trim person and to feel that your tax dollars are helping to underwrite other peoples' unchecked gluttony and laziness. Personally I hate it when my tax dollars are used to repair some highway in Nebraska that I'll never use, but oh well. When it comes to health care, you might as well get used to the idea that you, a healthy, carrot-munching tri-athlete, are contributing more to the system than you might ever take out, and that others lean on the system more than they ever put in.
Emergency rooms of hospitals are filled with fat, lazy, stoned, alcoholic and/or stupid people who got themselves shot or stabbed, who overdosed, got drunk and fell down, didn't wear their seatbelts and got ejected or otherwise contributed to their own sorry state. You hardly ever see any carrot-munching tri-athletes in there. But even a person who is wholly responsible for his own injury, such as a 'triple six' or attempted suicide, is still deserving of medical care wouldn't you agree?
Of course people should be more like you and me and crack open a nice bag of lettuce to munch on instead of a packet of crisps. But there's what you and I think people should do and then there's reality. Maybe we're all on a Darwinian path to becoming 300 pound behemoths who will someday sprout two assholes just to get rid of all the garbage we eat. Who knows? The operating word here is 'reality' not 'should'. So yes, if the reality is that the average customer is getting bigger then we as an industry need to consider providing a bigger vehicle.
And don't think 'financial implications'. Think 'economic opportunities' and a chance to get a bigger helicopter.
I know it hurts to be a healthy, trim person and to feel that your tax dollars are helping to underwrite other peoples' unchecked gluttony and laziness. Personally I hate it when my tax dollars are used to repair some highway in Nebraska that I'll never use, but oh well. When it comes to health care, you might as well get used to the idea that you, a healthy, carrot-munching tri-athlete, are contributing more to the system than you might ever take out, and that others lean on the system more than they ever put in.
Emergency rooms of hospitals are filled with fat, lazy, stoned, alcoholic and/or stupid people who got themselves shot or stabbed, who overdosed, got drunk and fell down, didn't wear their seatbelts and got ejected or otherwise contributed to their own sorry state. You hardly ever see any carrot-munching tri-athletes in there. But even a person who is wholly responsible for his own injury, such as a 'triple six' or attempted suicide, is still deserving of medical care wouldn't you agree?
Of course people should be more like you and me and crack open a nice bag of lettuce to munch on instead of a packet of crisps. But there's what you and I think people should do and then there's reality. Maybe we're all on a Darwinian path to becoming 300 pound behemoths who will someday sprout two assholes just to get rid of all the garbage we eat. Who knows? The operating word here is 'reality' not 'should'. So yes, if the reality is that the average customer is getting bigger then we as an industry need to consider providing a bigger vehicle.
And don't think 'financial implications'. Think 'economic opportunities' and a chance to get a bigger helicopter.
"Just a pilot"
Revolutionary, you've hit it exactly:
"Think 'economic opportunities' and a chance to get a bigger helicopter."
There's a subscription based business model currently doing very well in the US, so you don't have to re-invent that wheel. All the EMS pilots I know would love to fly bigger, more capable IFR equipment, another hurdle you will have leaped.
Revolutionize the industry!
"Think 'economic opportunities' and a chance to get a bigger helicopter."
There's a subscription based business model currently doing very well in the US, so you don't have to re-invent that wheel. All the EMS pilots I know would love to fly bigger, more capable IFR equipment, another hurdle you will have leaped.
Revolutionize the industry!
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: USA
Age: 55
Posts: 305
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Devil 49, that's the spirit! A little positive thinking... Although I'm not sure that the 'subscription' model is worth emulating. They can only make it work by flying hand-me-down ex-GOM LongRangers! Seriously, Travis County is a good example of a HEMS service supported by public funds that is working very well (and using nice aircraft I might add). Other countries often bid out exclusive service areas to private contractors, enabling them to field better equipemnt. Don't just accept that you're in an Astar because that's the only way to make it work. Try to be more 'Like Che', as they tell little kids in Cuba, and join the revolution, my friend!
Join Date: May 2002
Location: No Fixed Abode
Posts: 121
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Hang on a minute here, I'm a bit of a chubster. And being built like a brick sh!@thouse can honestly say its a constant struggle. However when she or any other human is confronted by scales which read 300lbs there must be a glimmer of dense reality that causes said person to think " 300lbs! Really; bugger! That's a lot for a homo sapien, maybe I should do something other than stuff my face with junk food and go for a walk after my salad."
Accountability was something i was lucky enough to learn from a mother that told me to 'face the consequences of your actions' something that a few of her compatriots could maybe try getting there heads around instead of attempting to sue every poor sod they can whilst ignoring that long silenced whisper of common sense that resides within a good proportion of any society.
Accountability was something i was lucky enough to learn from a mother that told me to 'face the consequences of your actions' something that a few of her compatriots could maybe try getting there heads around instead of attempting to sue every poor sod they can whilst ignoring that long silenced whisper of common sense that resides within a good proportion of any society.
Gatvol
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: KLAS/TIST/FAJS/KFAI
Posts: 4,195
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
"is still deserving of medical care wouldn't you agree?"
Now theres a point to ponder. When the average or above Average Joe has as his topic of conversation how much he has to fork out of his own pocket for his own health care, he may start to get a bit greedy for those who contribute nada out of their own carefree lifestyle.
Prices go up and income does not means that at some point Average Joe is going to say Whoa, you want health care fine, but Im not going to pay for it.
Its coming to that point.
My Guarantees by the contract I lived by gave me free medical upon retirement on one job and partially pay health care on the other. The partial pay Governemnt job has now said......well no we are not going to give you anything. (27 years on that lie) and the free stuff ( not free any longer) may soon go up from a minimum to 300% next year. My retirement may go up 2% go figure what kind of a fix I am in. And that was with GOOD planning for retirement.
So I have little sympathy for those who think that the Governemnt tit is a deep well. I am that deep well, and I say get her fat a55 a tow truck and be lucky if she has Auto Insurance.
Best way for Health care here in the states is to be illegal, on welfare or stinking rich.
Now theres a point to ponder. When the average or above Average Joe has as his topic of conversation how much he has to fork out of his own pocket for his own health care, he may start to get a bit greedy for those who contribute nada out of their own carefree lifestyle.
Prices go up and income does not means that at some point Average Joe is going to say Whoa, you want health care fine, but Im not going to pay for it.
Its coming to that point.
My Guarantees by the contract I lived by gave me free medical upon retirement on one job and partially pay health care on the other. The partial pay Governemnt job has now said......well no we are not going to give you anything. (27 years on that lie) and the free stuff ( not free any longer) may soon go up from a minimum to 300% next year. My retirement may go up 2% go figure what kind of a fix I am in. And that was with GOOD planning for retirement.
So I have little sympathy for those who think that the Governemnt tit is a deep well. I am that deep well, and I say get her fat a55 a tow truck and be lucky if she has Auto Insurance.
Best way for Health care here in the states is to be illegal, on welfare or stinking rich.
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Land of damp and drizzle
Posts: 608
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: Australia
Posts: 1,957
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Best way for Health care here in the states is to be illegal, on welfare or stinking rich.
But that is not why I posted.
I only just hit this thread and it has taken an interesting twist, one of intense interest for those who are a tad overweight, and or especially of high cholestral count.
It's topical in this household at the moment, and for those of who who do NOT wish to LOSE their flight status because of Statin drug use, OR WORSE, may I refer you to a book currently before me.
'Lipitor the thief of memory'
by Duane Graveline, M.D.
by Duane Graveline, M.D.
The author is an ex, astronaut, aerospace medical researcher, research scientist, flight surgeon and family doctor. And I suggest, also loaded with an uncommon amount of common sense.
A Very scary read.
I'll add one anicdote, for the last fifty years since heart attacks, obesity and diabetes became known, the low fat diet and lately statins have been used to combat these ills.
To the general effect that all three ailments are now in epidemic proportion. Statin production is a multi billion juggernaut!
good post Pandalet.
A Very scary read.
I'll add one anicdote, for the last fifty years since heart attacks, obesity and diabetes became known, the low fat diet and lately statins have been used to combat these ills.
To the general effect that all three ailments are now in epidemic proportion. Statin production is a multi billion juggernaut!
good post Pandalet.
