That's a bit embarrassing, RNZN?
Thread Starter
That's a bit embarrassing, RNZN?
Navy relies on charity rescue helicopter organisation to pluck one of its sailors from a vessel at sea:
Unconscious man winched from Navy ship and flown to hospital | Stuff.co.nz
No mention of why the NZDF couldn't use one of their own helicopters, or indeed if there was a Seasprite aboard or available in Auckland.
Unconscious man winched from Navy ship and flown to hospital | Stuff.co.nz
No mention of why the NZDF couldn't use one of their own helicopters, or indeed if there was a Seasprite aboard or available in Auckland.
Why would you use a Seasprite when you have the ARHT BK ready and available at Mechanics Bay. Thats what the crews are trained to do. If the patient needed medical care on the way back then being shoved in the back of the Seasprite wouldn't do them much good - probably better they were in the back of the BK with all its medical equipment.
And wouldn't a better title be "Thats Smart Thinking RNZN"
And wouldn't a better title be "Thats Smart Thinking RNZN"
Thread Starter
So the RNZN, a sovereign military force, lacks capability to transport and treat combat injury victims, equivalent to that provided by a charity?
Might be smart thinking but still embarrassing.
Might be smart thinking but still embarrassing.
Sorry disagree, with the ship in port i.e.: New Zealand maybe the Seasprite was undergoing maintenance in the hangar. Who knows, for whatever reason they called a service whose primary role is to pick up injured people. Why send an NH90 from Ohakea - when the BK is designed specifically for it. Sounds like you have a grudge against the military - oh well.
Agreed - why task an aircraft and crew not specifically trained for the task, or on a recognised standby for such tasks when you have a fully-SAR capable helo and crew (with all the requisite medical skills and kit) who can respond quickly and efficiently?
During many years at a SAR / EMS base, located in an area where the Aussie army conducted much of it's training, we routinely transported injured & sick soldiers for all the reasons listed above. It's what we were primarily set-up for, unlike their assets. Sounds to me like a good call by RNZN to me.
It's possible that the vessel's helideck was not in a usable condition if the vessel was not at flying stations.
Decks are sometimes used for other purposes - loading and unloading equipment, crane operations etc.
OH
Decks are sometimes used for other purposes - loading and unloading equipment, crane operations etc.
OH
Thread Starter
Ned and Crab get first prize for missing the point.
The military should be capable of evacuating and treating patients in flight.
The military is government funded. The rescue helicopter depends on charity to stay in the air.
It is not a great look to see civilians rescuing military on a charity budget.
And no, Ned, I have no grudges.
The military should be capable of evacuating and treating patients in flight.
The military is government funded. The rescue helicopter depends on charity to stay in the air.
It is not a great look to see civilians rescuing military on a charity budget.
And no, Ned, I have no grudges.
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Australia
Posts: 372
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Surely you realise that the parlous state of NZ Defence is as a direct result of their national anthem: "God Defend New Zealand" .... Because they sure as hell can't!
However, in defence of our mates across the ditch the Australian Defence Organisation many years ago farmed out their SAR to contractors and I am sure that some of the volunteer organisations took on the task as a supplement to their public donations.
Good blokes the Kiwis, apart from their bloody rugby team!
However, in defence of our mates across the ditch the Australian Defence Organisation many years ago farmed out their SAR to contractors and I am sure that some of the volunteer organisations took on the task as a supplement to their public donations.
Good blokes the Kiwis, apart from their bloody rugby team!
Ned and Crab get first prize for missing the point.
Would you rather the casualty has to wait while a crew is organised, an aircraft is serviced and made ready and then give him ad hoc medical cover with limited equipment rather than full paramedic care with a fully equipped helo?
No missing of the point - although I understand your frustration - it comes down to what is quickest and best for the patient, not for the RNZN.
So the RNZN, a sovereign military force, lacks capability to transport and treat combat injury victims, equivalent to that provided by a charity?
Krypton John, Seasprites are based ashore when the ships are on domestic duties, unless specifically detailed to be aboard. They usually only go aboard when the ship is out to sea on its way to international duties.
So.... would you rather wait for a Seasprite crew to assemble and depart Whenuapai, or call on the guys who are on 24/7 standby and can get there quicker?
Seasprites do NOT maintain a 24/7 SAR watch in NZ. That is NOT their duty. While afloat, yes. Ashore, no.
3Sqn do provide 24/7 SAR coverage, but they are now at Ohakea, so no help in this case.
So.... would you rather wait for a Seasprite crew to assemble and depart Whenuapai, or call on the guys who are on 24/7 standby and can get there quicker?
Seasprites do NOT maintain a 24/7 SAR watch in NZ. That is NOT their duty. While afloat, yes. Ashore, no.
3Sqn do provide 24/7 SAR coverage, but they are now at Ohakea, so no help in this case.
@nooby: that's the same as it was for Sea Sprites in the USN when I flew them. 
(Relationship the same, obviously the names of location were different ...)
(Relationship the same, obviously the names of location were different ...)
The key word was unconscious. If true the possible care requirements would have been totally different to combat evacuation. I presume the RNZN can indeed evacuate volume combat casualties but medically this was totally different and as others have said needed different medical equipment.
I have droned on in the past about military helicopters being used for NHS transfers in the UK and this is exactly the same argument. Horses for courses rather than some imaginary self pride.....
I have droned on in the past about military helicopters being used for NHS transfers in the UK and this is exactly the same argument. Horses for courses rather than some imaginary self pride.....
Join Date: Feb 2001
Location: Oz
Posts: 282
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
No, I think the key point here is the level of risk that the RNZN is willing to accept in peacetime, and I emphasise peacetime. If you are in a hostile area oddly enough the civ EMS aircraft won't be available and you have to rely on the lesser (but still capable) medical facilities on a military helicopter, accepting the higher risk to the patient as you have less gear and no trauma qualified doctor on board etc etc as unless you are a large airforce/navy you can't afford to run a dedicated combat SAR/Medevac aircraft.
It'd be like turning down an ambulance to take you to hospital as you have a perfectly good ute to use-after all it's still a vehicle?
Not that the RNZN gives a toss about my opinion - good call all round I reckon.
As for the winching- safer and quicker than landing a skidded aircraft with no tie down capability on a deck that probably hasn't been assessed with regard to SHOLS (ship helicopter operating limits) for that type
It'd be like turning down an ambulance to take you to hospital as you have a perfectly good ute to use-after all it's still a vehicle?
Not that the RNZN gives a toss about my opinion - good call all round I reckon.
As for the winching- safer and quicker than landing a skidded aircraft with no tie down capability on a deck that probably hasn't been assessed with regard to SHOLS (ship helicopter operating limits) for that type
