S-61 rescue: One of longest missions ever?
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: Above and Below Zero Lat. [Presently at least]
Posts: 198
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Gee Doc's....your missing the point.
Any worthwhile EMS/SAR Captain will fly to a limit before he/she cancels any response.
And the decision to cancel will be aviation related only.......regardless of what type of medical situation he/she is going to..........it makes no difference.
You are suggesting that the worse a patient is......then the harder a Captain will push into the safety margins......come on get real chaps........thats a quick way to die.
Leave the aviation decisions to the Captain......unloaded by "PRESSURE" to get there regardless.......
As I said........I hope your Captains smile and walk away, disregarding anything not related to aviation.
And the decision to cancel will be aviation related only.......regardless of what type of medical situation he/she is going to..........it makes no difference.
You are suggesting that the worse a patient is......then the harder a Captain will push into the safety margins......come on get real chaps........thats a quick way to die.
Leave the aviation decisions to the Captain......unloaded by "PRESSURE" to get there regardless.......
As I said........I hope your Captains smile and walk away, disregarding anything not related to aviation.
To add to the debate...hopefully....as a former EMS pilot....I always took the position that I performed medical transportation flights. I and my medical crew provided a service that enhanced the quality of the medical care provided to the patient/casualty and did not "save" lives. One must remember that before helicopter EMS/rescue services existed.....and when existing services cannot perform the mission for whatever reason....patients and casualties suffer from that lack of service. They did so before the advent of these operations and shall continue to do so in the future.
At the operations I flew for, we attempted to deprive the pilot from knowing the nature of the flight beyond that he needed for planning purposes....ie...neonatal requiring isolette, lengthy ground time for preparing the patient, scene location for hazards, and location for fuel planning, etc. This was so that the pilot was making a business decision rather than an emotional decision. If you think emotion does not enter into it.....wait until you hear it is a small child with ugly injuries or burns and the weather is marginal.....those decisions were always gut wrenching.
We do the best we can....in as safe a manner as possible. We do no one any good if we crash an aircraft enroute to or from the scene or hospital. It is an unfortunate fact of life....people die in this life despite all of our best intentions and efforts. The loss of any rescue/ems aircraft and personnel due to any decision to push beyond the established policies and procedures is unwarranted and unprofessional. One must know when to back off and try it again another time.
For the trip under discussion....I missed any report of the vessel making max turns towards shore and the nearest medical facility. I can only assume that was done to alleviate the demands upon the helicopter.
If the window for successful reattachment of a severed hand is 4-6 hours....I fail to see how this flight really became a viable issue. Flight time alone exceeded the or matched the announced window of time....along with the preflight delay for planning and such and the post flight transport to the operating room....it makes the whole exercise seem fruitless. I hope to hear of the results of the surgery and recovery of the individual concerned. If it succeeds, then all this was a certified success and deserves our admiration and congratulations to all involved with it.
At the operations I flew for, we attempted to deprive the pilot from knowing the nature of the flight beyond that he needed for planning purposes....ie...neonatal requiring isolette, lengthy ground time for preparing the patient, scene location for hazards, and location for fuel planning, etc. This was so that the pilot was making a business decision rather than an emotional decision. If you think emotion does not enter into it.....wait until you hear it is a small child with ugly injuries or burns and the weather is marginal.....those decisions were always gut wrenching.
We do the best we can....in as safe a manner as possible. We do no one any good if we crash an aircraft enroute to or from the scene or hospital. It is an unfortunate fact of life....people die in this life despite all of our best intentions and efforts. The loss of any rescue/ems aircraft and personnel due to any decision to push beyond the established policies and procedures is unwarranted and unprofessional. One must know when to back off and try it again another time.
For the trip under discussion....I missed any report of the vessel making max turns towards shore and the nearest medical facility. I can only assume that was done to alleviate the demands upon the helicopter.
If the window for successful reattachment of a severed hand is 4-6 hours....I fail to see how this flight really became a viable issue. Flight time alone exceeded the or matched the announced window of time....along with the preflight delay for planning and such and the post flight transport to the operating room....it makes the whole exercise seem fruitless. I hope to hear of the results of the surgery and recovery of the individual concerned. If it succeeds, then all this was a certified success and deserves our admiration and congratulations to all involved with it.
PPRuNe Engineering Dept Apprentice
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: Deep in the boglands of Western Ireland
Posts: 295
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like
on
1 Post
can I just ask anyone in the EMS community........
As part of Civil Defence (a voluntary drinking organisation with a First-aid problem
) the first thing we were told when we sat down in front of the overhead projector was.....
The Priorities of Rescue:
1. Your Safety
2. Your team's Safety
3. Casualty Safety
Am I right in saying this applies to EMS all over?
As part of Civil Defence (a voluntary drinking organisation with a First-aid problem
) the first thing we were told when we sat down in front of the overhead projector was.....The Priorities of Rescue:
1. Your Safety
2. Your team's Safety
3. Casualty Safety
Am I right in saying this applies to EMS all over?
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Queensland Australia
Posts: 267
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
There were suggestions at one time with the service I was with to limit the pilots knowledge (and this came from the medical side of the service) of why we were going - in practical terms it just doesn't work.
The aircrew had to load the gear, plan for patient and a hundred other things that were useful or required to get the job done. They mostly have a good idea from the way everyone is acting anyway.
In the end we what did what every sensible team should do - communicate everything we knew with everybody and we then left it with the pilot to decide on the final aviation decision.
But you have to look at this subject with real practical true-life eyes. We all, whether an ivory-tower-ite likes it or not, allow the patient at the other end to affect do some degree our decision making. If we didn't we'd stay home every time.
But the reality is if its a sick kid or young multi-trauma we all see the risks as less and the need as greater (and that applies to captains too!)
The aircrew had to load the gear, plan for patient and a hundred other things that were useful or required to get the job done. They mostly have a good idea from the way everyone is acting anyway.
In the end we what did what every sensible team should do - communicate everything we knew with everybody and we then left it with the pilot to decide on the final aviation decision.
But you have to look at this subject with real practical true-life eyes. We all, whether an ivory-tower-ite likes it or not, allow the patient at the other end to affect do some degree our decision making. If we didn't we'd stay home every time.
But the reality is if its a sick kid or young multi-trauma we all see the risks as less and the need as greater (and that applies to captains too!)
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: North of somewhere south
Posts: 41
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Gentlemen, I am sorry if I repeat anything already said on this thread, but I got so annoyed reading it that I just have to respond.
First I am a SAR Captain based at an RAF Mil flt somewhere near Elgin. I was in the Flt the day that the info for this job came in. The ARCCK asked us to look it over as a double check.
Hats off to Stornoway for doing the job. As a Cpatain you get asked to do a job and my decision making process is this.
Someone needs our help. Can we get there? If the answer is yes or maybe I'll go and have a look. It really is that simple.
I've lost count of how many times I have gone to jobs where the actual injuries are 180 degrees out from what was reported.
Our job is the 1000 to 1 long shot and we are all volunteers. If you are asked you go. There really isn't too much else to say. All those who question whether an aircraft should be risked, well I hope you aren't in a position where you need urgent help but someone in an office is doing some risk management.
The message is: Just get on with it. If you can't do it, you can't do it, but you should always have a go.
Rant over.
First I am a SAR Captain based at an RAF Mil flt somewhere near Elgin. I was in the Flt the day that the info for this job came in. The ARCCK asked us to look it over as a double check.
Hats off to Stornoway for doing the job. As a Cpatain you get asked to do a job and my decision making process is this.
Someone needs our help. Can we get there? If the answer is yes or maybe I'll go and have a look. It really is that simple.
I've lost count of how many times I have gone to jobs where the actual injuries are 180 degrees out from what was reported.
Our job is the 1000 to 1 long shot and we are all volunteers. If you are asked you go. There really isn't too much else to say. All those who question whether an aircraft should be risked, well I hope you aren't in a position where you need urgent help but someone in an office is doing some risk management.
The message is: Just get on with it. If you can't do it, you can't do it, but you should always have a go.
Rant over.
Join Date: Dec 2002
Location: Planet Earth
Posts: 78
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Record helicopter rescue
Seriously ill sailor picked up in 1,650 km operation
Thursday, December 5, 2002
By CP
ST. JOHN'S, Nfld. -- A Cormorant helicopter from 103 Squadron in Gander, Nfld., completed the longest offshore rescue mission in the short operational history of the aircraft in Canada yesterday.
The single-rotor helicopter flew a round trip of about 1,650 km out to sea to rescue a seriously injured crewmember from a Norwegian bulk carrier off the east coast of Newfoundland.
The Cormorant successfully landed the man at the Health Sciences Centre in St. John's at about 8 p.m -- nine hours after it left Gander.
"It was one of the longest missions for any helicopter," said Maj. Gilbert Thibault, the pilot who flew the mission.
"We could not have done this if we were still flying Labradors."
The mission began at about 11 a.m. Wednesday when a call was received from the Berge Nord, a Norwegian bulk carrier in high seas about 750 km east of Gander. On board the ship was a man who suffered a head injury and an open leg fracture. Under normal weather conditions a Cormorant can fly about 1,100 km before running out of fuel, which meant the mission had enough fuel to reach the ship but not enough to get back.
So the crew flew 500 km from Gander to the Hibernia offshore oil platform, where the aircraft was refuelled. The Cormorant then travelled north 400 km to the ship and the injured man was hoisted aboard.
"The tricky part was getting back to Hibernia fighting headwinds of 130 kilometres an hour," Thibault said. "Fuel was always the critical issue."
When the aircraft landed at Hibernia the second time late Wednesday afternoon, the tank had enough fuel left for about 30 more minutes of flying, he said.
From
THE TORONTO SUN
Last edited by Heliport; 28th Dec 2002 at 17:56.
Apologies for butting in.......
If I recall correctly the S61 rescue is one of the longest missions, without refuelling.
The other two rescues mentioned, both involved the helicopters refuelling during their respective tasks.
After that long haul I don't think there would be much fuel left in the 'Sticky Bun' when it arrived back in SYY.
If I recall correctly the S61 rescue is one of the longest missions, without refuelling.
The other two rescues mentioned, both involved the helicopters refuelling during their respective tasks.
After that long haul I don't think there would be much fuel left in the 'Sticky Bun' when it arrived back in SYY.
Join Date: Sep 2001
Location: Canada
Posts: 158
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Here's my thought:
There is a difference between RESCUE and EMS, I think. Rescue operations sometimes go that extra mile because they are in the Rescue business. With EMS however, I always remember basic math (which I have referred to in previous posts): 4 > 1 in all cases. Never risk 4 lives to save 1 in an EMS operation.
I understand that Coast Guard, and other SAR/Rescue services don't always subscribe to this philosophy. Best decisions are made when the aircrew use only aviation criteria to GO/ NO GO and to STAY/TURN AROUND.
IF they had only 5 minutes of fuel, then they had only 5 minutes of fuel. End of story. Every Captain should be prepared to fly to destination, encounter lousy weather 2 miles back and turn around to return to base.
4 > 1 in all cases.
Cheers
PS Is there anyone out there in PPrune land who can get in contact with the pilots who were on this mission to get their thoughts?
There is a difference between RESCUE and EMS, I think. Rescue operations sometimes go that extra mile because they are in the Rescue business. With EMS however, I always remember basic math (which I have referred to in previous posts): 4 > 1 in all cases. Never risk 4 lives to save 1 in an EMS operation.
I understand that Coast Guard, and other SAR/Rescue services don't always subscribe to this philosophy. Best decisions are made when the aircrew use only aviation criteria to GO/ NO GO and to STAY/TURN AROUND.
IF they had only 5 minutes of fuel, then they had only 5 minutes of fuel. End of story. Every Captain should be prepared to fly to destination, encounter lousy weather 2 miles back and turn around to return to base.
4 > 1 in all cases.
Cheers
PS Is there anyone out there in PPrune land who can get in contact with the pilots who were on this mission to get their thoughts?
Join Date: Dec 2002
Location: Planet Earth
Posts: 78
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
excrewingbod
No apologies necessary
I just posted something I think was a kind of a record breaking piece of flight, at least in Canada with one of those formidable and brand new 101's.
Intentionally I didn't compare anything.
wde
Which mission are you referring to ?
If its the one in Canada I don’t know any of them.
No apologies necessary
I just posted something I think was a kind of a record breaking piece of flight, at least in Canada with one of those formidable and brand new 101's.
Intentionally I didn't compare anything.
wde
Which mission are you referring to ?
If its the one in Canada I don’t know any of them.
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: Above and Below Zero Lat. [Presently at least]
Posts: 198
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
wde
Ggeeeeeeee..........how one forgets...????
I can remember doing SAR with an "Amada" of highly trained people in the foreground.......linked via VHF, HF, Sat and Data Link download..............come on get real............now I do the same from a remote base with VHF to 60 nms, then a hope and a pray to overhead a beacon, then hope its daylight before my fuel reach's critical [No C130's here].......and then get back home only to do the morning crewchange.............no evening news or green suit PR people pushing their case here.......[they were all in bed]
No its not sour grapes.........just that there is another tier of professionals [I hope], doing the same task..........with no fan fair..........
I can remember doing SAR with an "Amada" of highly trained people in the foreground.......linked via VHF, HF, Sat and Data Link download..............come on get real............now I do the same from a remote base with VHF to 60 nms, then a hope and a pray to overhead a beacon, then hope its daylight before my fuel reach's critical [No C130's here].......and then get back home only to do the morning crewchange.............no evening news or green suit PR people pushing their case here.......[they were all in bed]
No its not sour grapes.........just that there is another tier of professionals [I hope], doing the same task..........with no fan fair..........
Last edited by Old Man Rotor; 4th Jan 2003 at 12:19.
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: home
Posts: 32
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
taken from the S61 rescue: The vessel was outside the maximum range of the helicopter but the Coastguard arranged for the helicopter to refuel on the drilling rig JACK BATES that is operating 54 miles Northwest of the Butt of Lewis. Even with the extra fuel on board, the helicopter crew only had 5 minutes to evacuate the crewman before heading back to the rig for more fuel and then returning to Stornoway.
excrewingbod, how do you come to the conclusion there was no refueling during this mission? Or were you talking about a different S61 rescue?
excrewingbod, how do you come to the conclusion there was no refueling during this mission? Or were you talking about a different S61 rescue?
Join Date: Dec 2002
Location: Planet Earth
Posts: 78
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Hi Jack S.
So finally it was something exactly like the Canadian 101 did. Going to an oil platform for refueling twice...
Of this size it was a first in Canada.
excrewingbod
What rescue without refuelling are you talking about ?
So finally it was something exactly like the Canadian 101 did. Going to an oil platform for refueling twice...
Of this size it was a first in Canada.
excrewingbod
What rescue without refuelling are you talking about ?
Guest
Posts: n/a
Congratulations to the crew concerned - being a long way from home, calculating fuel burn almost constantly, and with a winch task to undertake in minimal time is not something to make you get out the party hats. I would have to agree with QDM in regard to task justifing the risk though.
Operating on the west coast of Australia we often get calls to ships at max range. As a rule, if it's not life thretaning we get the ship to steam closer before launching.
However, despite extensive consultation through all relevant agencies following a call for assistance, I have still arrived on a deck with the knowledge that I am under the clock, looking for a 'suspected spinal' stretcher casualty, only to find him walking towards me with a sore back!
The joy of SAR...
Operating on the west coast of Australia we often get calls to ships at max range. As a rule, if it's not life thretaning we get the ship to steam closer before launching.
However, despite extensive consultation through all relevant agencies following a call for assistance, I have still arrived on a deck with the knowledge that I am under the clock, looking for a 'suspected spinal' stretcher casualty, only to find him walking towards me with a sore back!
The joy of SAR...
