NSW EMS sensitive spot?
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: NSW
Posts: 11
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
A big problem
riadbec, Your source is poorly imformed. The fact is that currently the heaviest patient able to be carried is ~110kg. The wieght of a patient is nearly always underestimated by refering staff which does at times result in heavier patients being transfered but 220kgs....forget about it! Hit the road jack.........
Last edited by folald; 18th Jan 2008 at 07:50.
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: Sydney
Posts: 6
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Dr Super
As they say a change is as good as a holiday, but I still support the efforts and believe that there is no choice but to make YSBK work for the communities sake.
Regardless of who the client is....You know what I mean
Its important to put the end user first.... are you saying you disagree.???..
I think Drs still take the
Hippocratic Oath
Not Hypocrite....lol
BF
Regardless of who the client is....You know what I mean
Its important to put the end user first.... are you saying you disagree.???..
I think Drs still take the
Hippocratic Oath
Not Hypocrite....lol
BF
Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: Australia
Age: 46
Posts: 23
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
BF, Seems that the NSW "community" = end users regardless of who they are ...... except fat people who deserve to be disadvantaged because they eat a lot.
Maybe we should exclude other people who indulge in risky behaviours... smokers, rock climbers .... you know what I mean ....lol
Maybe we should exclude other people who indulge in risky behaviours... smokers, rock climbers .... you know what I mean ....lol
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: NSW
Posts: 11
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Same, same but different.
raidbec, I'm sure you're just being prevocative 
but it should be said, it isn't that overwieght folks deserve to be disadvantaged, they don't, neither do obstetric emergencies or a patients sick in the wrong part of the state during bad weather. It's just that we currently have no safe means of transfering these patients by helicopter. I hope this changes. We'll see. 
but it should be said, it isn't that overwieght folks deserve to be disadvantaged, they don't, neither do obstetric emergencies or a patients sick in the wrong part of the state during bad weather. It's just that we currently have no safe means of transfering these patients by helicopter. I hope this changes. We'll see.
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: dunnunder
Posts: 129
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Just a thought guys. Usually when the above sorts of rant-posts are made, a caveat is made to the tune of "we are against the system and it's decisions, not those opperating under those decisions at the front line". As it doesnt seem that a lot of those posting the above agressive and bitter posts are willing to make this acknowledgement I shall.
To ALL EMS crews out there, at least some of us thank you for being there ready to get airborne in short order, single pilot, IFR, bad weather, little planning to often un-surveyed sights/tiger country. Always limited by their equipment (whatever they fly), and regardless of what colour zoombags they wear or what motto is painted on the tail.
Note. I am not making any comment for/against the present system, just strongly FOR those working within it. As someone too close to the subject to say more, I'll just say that perhaps we should start playing the ball instead of the man.
To ALL EMS crews out there, at least some of us thank you for being there ready to get airborne in short order, single pilot, IFR, bad weather, little planning to often un-surveyed sights/tiger country. Always limited by their equipment (whatever they fly), and regardless of what colour zoombags they wear or what motto is painted on the tail.
Note. I am not making any comment for/against the present system, just strongly FOR those working within it. As someone too close to the subject to say more, I'll just say that perhaps we should start playing the ball instead of the man.
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Newcastle, NSW
Posts: 24
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Patient weights
For your information Folald, our current Ferno stretchers have a maximum weight of 160 kg, which includes the patient, bridge and medical equipment.
Our DHS megalift stretcher has a 200 kg capacity. Doesn't get a lot of use at the moment but it's there when it's needed for our ever expanding population.
Just thought I'd add my two bobs worth.
Cheers
Our DHS megalift stretcher has a 200 kg capacity. Doesn't get a lot of use at the moment but it's there when it's needed for our ever expanding population.
Just thought I'd add my two bobs worth.
Cheers
Last edited by LHSboy; 18th Jan 2008 at 21:50. Reason: Spelling mistake
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: sans frontieres
Posts: 151
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Well said W-ocker.
It's a smaller world by the minute.....Slag our own talent you slag yourselves and us all.
Maybe in the future some of the aforepublished aviation gonzos will miss a job or suffer adverse comment in a forum somewhere and wonder...."How come everyone thinks we are amateurs and clowns"
Work to do it better...... but don't let the sour grapes of contract rivalry damage our standing in the wider industry.
BTW I am not connected with NGO or the present contractors. Just affected by the damage you stalk beaters are inflicting upon our reputation/s.
It's a smaller world by the minute.....Slag our own talent you slag yourselves and us all.
Maybe in the future some of the aforepublished aviation gonzos will miss a job or suffer adverse comment in a forum somewhere and wonder...."How come everyone thinks we are amateurs and clowns"
Work to do it better...... but don't let the sour grapes of contract rivalry damage our standing in the wider industry.
BTW I am not connected with NGO or the present contractors. Just affected by the damage you stalk beaters are inflicting upon our reputation/s.
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: NSW
Posts: 11
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Droll
We must be bored!
Folks, surely we can get onto something more interesting than a debate over 10kgs either way, but hey I'm up for it, lets bounce this around a little shall we?
160 kgs you quote.
~110kg patient + 40kg gear/bridge = 150kg......with 10kg left over to allow for the fact that many patients are 10kg or more heavier than quoted by the refering hospital. Now as you can tell I'm no rocket scientist but that = ~ the 160kgs you quote the stretcher being rated at.
Boring!!!! If you're still awake.
The 'mega lift' stretcher may well be an under utilised option as you suggest, but why is that so?
May I be so bold as to suggest that 4 flight crew, assisted by 2 (untrained) orderlies being asked to lift wieghts of greater than 160kg (lets say the 220kgs 'they' say is OK) to chest height in order to load the patient/bridge/gear into the back of an aircraft is in my humble opinion placing the patient and crews at an unnecessary risk of injury, when there is no evidence of these patients experiencing a poorer outcome as the result of travelling by road. What's the basis of all this haste to move the patient and is it worth injury to your crew?
Basic maths says we're talking about an awkward lift at about 26 to 40kg per man/woman.
If you think the risk is minimal do a survey on how many of your colleagues have experienced back injuries and hernias from these types of activities.
If folks reckon they know better and that I'm sounding a little 'soft' then why are bags of cement/concrete only 20kgs and not more. I doubt that brickies labourers are soft!
It's not the job of Medical/Flight crews to accept responsibility for every Patient that a hospital decides can't wait for a road ambulance to transfer.
You just don't need to take that responsibility.
As I suggested previously if patient is delayed due to weather causing and unacceptable risk, it is accepted and an other means of tranfer is arranged and no there's harm is done.
I'm sure that there are folks out there that will feel the need to have the last say on this but quite frankly I'm more than a lttle over it!
But go ahead.
Better still though, If you know how it is being done better elsewhere great! Post a picture or an idea and lets do it better too.
Otherwise lets all move on and get onto some ways of improving what we do. We can even have a laugh
That's my 99cents worth...you can keep the change.
folald (flat out like a lizard drinking)
Folks, surely we can get onto something more interesting than a debate over 10kgs either way, but hey I'm up for it, lets bounce this around a little shall we?
160 kgs you quote.
~110kg patient + 40kg gear/bridge = 150kg......with 10kg left over to allow for the fact that many patients are 10kg or more heavier than quoted by the refering hospital. Now as you can tell I'm no rocket scientist but that = ~ the 160kgs you quote the stretcher being rated at.
Boring!!!! If you're still awake.
The 'mega lift' stretcher may well be an under utilised option as you suggest, but why is that so?
May I be so bold as to suggest that 4 flight crew, assisted by 2 (untrained) orderlies being asked to lift wieghts of greater than 160kg (lets say the 220kgs 'they' say is OK) to chest height in order to load the patient/bridge/gear into the back of an aircraft is in my humble opinion placing the patient and crews at an unnecessary risk of injury, when there is no evidence of these patients experiencing a poorer outcome as the result of travelling by road. What's the basis of all this haste to move the patient and is it worth injury to your crew?
Basic maths says we're talking about an awkward lift at about 26 to 40kg per man/woman.
If you think the risk is minimal do a survey on how many of your colleagues have experienced back injuries and hernias from these types of activities.
If folks reckon they know better and that I'm sounding a little 'soft' then why are bags of cement/concrete only 20kgs and not more. I doubt that brickies labourers are soft!
It's not the job of Medical/Flight crews to accept responsibility for every Patient that a hospital decides can't wait for a road ambulance to transfer.
You just don't need to take that responsibility.
As I suggested previously if patient is delayed due to weather causing and unacceptable risk, it is accepted and an other means of tranfer is arranged and no there's harm is done.
I'm sure that there are folks out there that will feel the need to have the last say on this but quite frankly I'm more than a lttle over it!
But go ahead.Better still though, If you know how it is being done better elsewhere great! Post a picture or an idea and lets do it better too.
Otherwise lets all move on and get onto some ways of improving what we do. We can even have a laugh
That's my 99cents worth...you can keep the change.
folald (flat out like a lizard drinking)
Last edited by folald; 20th Jan 2008 at 19:40. Reason: grammar
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: Ban Don Ling
Posts: 244
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Firstly - thanks to Mr Ponting for being so sporting as to lose the cricket for the sake of the game ....
But what intrigues me most about this thread ... is accountability - riadbec posts three times in a row ... and yet his tally stays at 6 .... surely should be minimum 8 ..... dead reckoning?
The post tally is total posts, and is reflected in all posts made by the Rotorhead. There is no magic way of making the posts number sequentially!
Go back and look at your own tally
Senior Pilot
But what intrigues me most about this thread ... is accountability - riadbec posts three times in a row ... and yet his tally stays at 6 .... surely should be minimum 8 ..... dead reckoning?
The post tally is total posts, and is reflected in all posts made by the Rotorhead. There is no magic way of making the posts number sequentially!
Go back and look at your own tally
Senior Pilot
Spinwing
I agree, its a helicopter.
Find a piece of ground big enough and land on it. I am sure an airport would be bigger than the 139, and that is about the only requirement for a helicopter.
With statements like that this thread is moving towards the ridiculous.
I agree, its a helicopter.
Find a piece of ground big enough and land on it. I am sure an airport would be bigger than the 139, and that is about the only requirement for a helicopter.
With statements like that this thread is moving towards the ridiculous.
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: My office.
Posts: 12
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I'm just waiting for the day a 139 lands on a beach or in a boggy park and sinks.
It's unfortunate that when the pressure is not to get the medical crew to the scene and the SOPs say land and don't winch that it would still come back as pilot error. The pressure on the pilot would be even more intense with a dobber amoungst the crew.
There is a lot to be said for skids
It's unfortunate that when the pressure is not to get the medical crew to the scene and the SOPs say land and don't winch that it would still come back as pilot error. The pressure on the pilot would be even more intense with a dobber amoungst the crew.
There is a lot to be said for skids
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: South of North Pole
Posts: 6
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
It just shows the lack of understanding of aviation on this thread? Full of uneducated posts methinks!
The AW139 has a very high wheel pressure. Runways have a maximum wheel pressure figure for each runway. It will probably be able to land at Bankstown (I haven't bothered to check) but it may not be able to land at other regional airports?
The AW139 has a high downwash, this could cause serious issues with light aircraft parked or maneouvering at airports close to the landing / take off area of the AW139
Hospital pads in NSW, the ones that are made of concrete, elevated or not, have been designed to B412EP weights, not the weight of an AW139. Lets not forget that the all up weight of the AW139 seems to be ever expanding!
Elevated helipads require G-force loading in case the helicopter lands hard. If this cannot be achieved then a number of floors below the helipad need to be evacuated prior to landing and taking off. Remember, these pads were designed for B412EP's weights, just ask the man who designed them, health assumed that nothing would ever replace the B412
Then there are the hospital pads and unprepared landing sites (don't forget roadways as the AW139 may just leave a calling card each time they land on our underfunded roadways) etc. The AW139 is likely to leave an imprint in a lot of place. Hope there is not too much rain ahead. Soggy ground could add other issues like dynamic rollover!
RAIDBEC makes an interesting comment about the availability of the EC145.
Remember when the health department was using their spin doctors (no pun intended) to deceive the mums and dads about the new supplier. In case you have forgotten, here's a link:
http://amwac.health.nsw.gov.au/pubs/...service_fs.pdf
Well, apart from a load of lies, predominantly written by a small doctor with axes to grind, they also supplied a timeline of the new aircraft. That's right, the new aircraft that could only be supplied by the new provider, no one else could supposedly match or better there supply rates.
Well, it states that the EC145 should be here by now!
I have nothing against replacing providers, what is criminal is when you hoodwink the public, through spin doctors, into thinking they are getting a better system, when in reality they are not. This comes down to many reason and all players concerned are to blame in some ways.
Sorry to rant on, going back to the big plasma
The AW139 has a very high wheel pressure. Runways have a maximum wheel pressure figure for each runway. It will probably be able to land at Bankstown (I haven't bothered to check) but it may not be able to land at other regional airports?
The AW139 has a high downwash, this could cause serious issues with light aircraft parked or maneouvering at airports close to the landing / take off area of the AW139
Hospital pads in NSW, the ones that are made of concrete, elevated or not, have been designed to B412EP weights, not the weight of an AW139. Lets not forget that the all up weight of the AW139 seems to be ever expanding!
Elevated helipads require G-force loading in case the helicopter lands hard. If this cannot be achieved then a number of floors below the helipad need to be evacuated prior to landing and taking off. Remember, these pads were designed for B412EP's weights, just ask the man who designed them, health assumed that nothing would ever replace the B412
Then there are the hospital pads and unprepared landing sites (don't forget roadways as the AW139 may just leave a calling card each time they land on our underfunded roadways) etc. The AW139 is likely to leave an imprint in a lot of place. Hope there is not too much rain ahead. Soggy ground could add other issues like dynamic rollover!
RAIDBEC makes an interesting comment about the availability of the EC145.
Remember when the health department was using their spin doctors (no pun intended) to deceive the mums and dads about the new supplier. In case you have forgotten, here's a link:
http://amwac.health.nsw.gov.au/pubs/...service_fs.pdf
Well, apart from a load of lies, predominantly written by a small doctor with axes to grind, they also supplied a timeline of the new aircraft. That's right, the new aircraft that could only be supplied by the new provider, no one else could supposedly match or better there supply rates.
Well, it states that the EC145 should be here by now!
I have nothing against replacing providers, what is criminal is when you hoodwink the public, through spin doctors, into thinking they are getting a better system, when in reality they are not. This comes down to many reason and all players concerned are to blame in some ways.
Sorry to rant on, going back to the big plasma
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: L.D.U.
Posts: 81
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
There is a lot to be said for skids
Might I suggest that it is probably because the pilot in command, for that split second (or longer duration, in some cases!
), was an idiot and allowed external factors (such as perceived pressure from people NOT in a position to comment on how a flight should be conducted) to get in the way of safe aviating?Like all organisations, things change with the times. If the "old faithful" B412 has to give way to a more modern type in the future, this is called progress. Aircraft types will change, and so will the way they are flown in their various roles. So be it - we don't buy them, we just fly them!
Anyway, given the background of a lot of EMS pilots these days (military pilots with solid experience flying 22,000lb wheeled helicopters), I'm sure that they, and the other professional pilots out there who worked through the GA ranks, will have no trouble working out how not to crash a 14,000lb AW139.
The Baffler