The UK Childrens Air Ambulance - Info??
Join Date: May 2009
Location: NI
Posts: 21
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Lets hope it's doesn't end up like http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/northern_ireland/8101691.stm
No sign of any Air Ambulance either.......
No sign of any Air Ambulance either.......
Air ambulances are about saving life, right? Surely the more we have the better.
It would help if the CAA made it easier for the trusts to set up. For example, in the interests of saving life, a single engine helicopter would be a more viable option.
(Yes I know the public transport at night rules require a twin, but in the interests of saving life?) Given that rotory air ambulances rarely fly at night anyway.
It would help if the CAA made it easier for the trusts to set up. For example, in the interests of saving life, a single engine helicopter would be a more viable option.
(Yes I know the public transport at night rules require a twin, but in the interests of saving life?) Given that rotory air ambulances rarely fly at night anyway.And exactly how many doctors, medics/nurses, pilots and incubators/stretchers do you propose fitting into an R44?
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: Europe
Posts: 716
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
...and, there's probably a reason why a twin is required by law, too. This is a tough fact to accept for many, but at least in the ambulance outfit where I work, the motto is "we don't risk 3 lives to save 1". Really, when it comes to saving lives, this is/should be (don't know how this is in the UK) a public task, and a certain operational standard should be required.
Join Date: Nov 2008
Location: UK
Age: 66
Posts: 919
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Yawn. Are you still banging that drum, chopjock?
And exactly how many doctors, medics/nurses, pilots and incubators/stretchers do you propose fitting into an R44?
And exactly how many doctors, medics/nurses, pilots and incubators/stretchers do you propose fitting into an R44?
R44? who said anything about an R44 in this thread.?
There's lots I do not understand, one thing is why does an air ambulance require two engines? If there is a choice between no air ambulance, a single engined one sooner, or wait forever for a twin, I suggest a single now would be better than none. (no I'm not suggesting an R44 either).
I don't know the figures, but I would hazard a guess that for the cost of say four twins, you could have five singles. If this is an accurate guess, then that's another ambulance out there saving lives for the same money.
As I understand it, rightly or wrongly, air ambulances operate VFR only? I also believe the rules of the air can be relaxed in the interests of saving life, so a single could fly in and out of hospitals, built up areas etc, legally.
Just my point of view, being as this is a forum an all.
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: ...in view of the 'Southern Cross' ...
Posts: 1,383
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Mmmm ...
Chopjock ..... your view ...so a single could fly in and out of hospitals, built up areas etc, legally. .... is flawed.
The issue is one of doing the task SAFELY .... as well as legally!
And sometimes .. .. it is better to not to do a task if you can't do it properly.
Cheers
Chopjock ..... your view ...so a single could fly in and out of hospitals, built up areas etc, legally. .... is flawed.
The issue is one of doing the task SAFELY .... as well as legally!
And sometimes .. .. it is better to not to do a task if you can't do it properly.
Cheers
Join Date: Nov 2008
Location: UK
Age: 66
Posts: 919
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
An MD600N could do the job nicely. According to MD the 600N is very safe!
Or there's the EC130, Bell 407, Bell 210, A119 and so on. Think how many more ambulances we could have, if we did not limit to flying twins in VFR conditions.
Or there's the EC130, Bell 407, Bell 210, A119 and so on. Think how many more ambulances we could have, if we did not limit to flying twins in VFR conditions.
Join Date: Aug 1998
Location: England
Age: 54
Posts: 106
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
chopjock
I cannot answer your points in terms of the rules and regulations that AA's have to comply with in the UK as I'm not a professional pilot and there are far more suitable and qualified people than me to answer those points (if they choose to do so).
However, your point about we could have far more helicopters if they were single engined doesn't stack up (IMHO). All AA's in the UK are charities and with the exception of one county - and two groups of 3 counties - they are responsible for raising the cash to keep an aircraft flying. To give you an idea (and these numbers are from the 90's so well out of date), the difference between an AS350 and an AS355 was about 20% per hour. Taking this to a logical (albeit imperfect conclusion), an AA charity would need to raise 70% more per month to have two single engine helicopters. Given the current climate (and again forgetting rules and regs) this would be very tough.
The final point is that there simply isn't the demand at the moment throughout most of the UK for each county to have two aircraft. If you look at the amount of calls per week that each does then one is suitable. Take into account that they have to land in city centres if required then one twin helicopter per county is the only answer.
Anyway, just my opinion as a volunteer for one of them
I cannot answer your points in terms of the rules and regulations that AA's have to comply with in the UK as I'm not a professional pilot and there are far more suitable and qualified people than me to answer those points (if they choose to do so).
However, your point about we could have far more helicopters if they were single engined doesn't stack up (IMHO). All AA's in the UK are charities and with the exception of one county - and two groups of 3 counties - they are responsible for raising the cash to keep an aircraft flying. To give you an idea (and these numbers are from the 90's so well out of date), the difference between an AS350 and an AS355 was about 20% per hour. Taking this to a logical (albeit imperfect conclusion), an AA charity would need to raise 70% more per month to have two single engine helicopters. Given the current climate (and again forgetting rules and regs) this would be very tough.
The final point is that there simply isn't the demand at the moment throughout most of the UK for each county to have two aircraft. If you look at the amount of calls per week that each does then one is suitable. Take into account that they have to land in city centres if required then one twin helicopter per county is the only answer.
Anyway, just my opinion as a volunteer for one of them
Join Date: Nov 2008
Location: UK
Age: 66
Posts: 919
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
spinwing Mmmm ...
Chopjock ..... your view ...so a single could fly in and out of hospitals, built up areas etc, legally. .... is flawed.
Chopjock ..... your view ...so a single could fly in and out of hospitals, built up areas etc, legally. .... is flawed.
2.4 Saving of Life
There is only one blanket exemption from the Rules of the Air Regulations made under the ANO and this concerns flights for the purpose of saving life. The Rules provide that nothing in the rule relating to low flying shall prohibit any aircraft from flying in such a manner as is necessary for the purpose of saving life. Although this is probably not contentious, the onus of proof is placed upon the helicopter operator who may be required to justify his actions to the CAA. The increasing number of helicopters in support of conventional ambulance services is relevant in this context.
If I'm barking up the wrong tree again, I'm sure someone will put me straight.?
Last edited by chopjock; 16th Dec 2009 at 23:17.
Hovering AND talking
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: Propping up bars in the Lands of D H Lawrence and Bishop Bonner
Age: 59
Posts: 5,705
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
2.4 Saving of Life There is only one blanket exemption from the Rules of the Air Regulations made under the ANO and this concerns flights for the purpose of saving life. The Rules provide that nothing in the rule relating to low flying shall prohibit any aircraft from flying in such a manner as is necessary for the purpose of saving life. Although this is probably not contentious, the onus of proof is placed upon the helicopter operator who may be required to justify his actions to the CAA. The increasing number of helicopters in support of conventional ambulance services is relevant in this context.
There are a lot of people here who are trying to put you straight but hey, there's none so blind as those who will not see.
Cheers
Whirls
Join Date: Nov 2008
Location: UK
Age: 66
Posts: 919
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Also from the BHAB site:
I was under the impression the 1000ft rule was relevent to built up areas? and included in the "low flying" rules section of the ANO
But you could be right, perhaps I just will not see yet.
Exemptions from the '1,000 foot Rule' could include the use of a landing site in a city centre, aerial photography and survey work as well as police and ambulance operations.
and included in the "low flying" rules section of the ANOBut you could be right, perhaps I just will not see yet.
First 10 minutes of this are interesting (sadly only available for another few hours).
Mentions Paul Forster - isn't he 'something' in the helo world?
BBC - BBC One Programmes - Inside Out South West
Mentions Paul Forster - isn't he 'something' in the helo world?
BBC - BBC One Programmes - Inside Out South West
Blimey
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: UK
Posts: 342
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
ChopJock,
Having had the lightbulb moment that you're more than likely 'ChopperJockey' on another rotary forum. And not wishing to get in to another detailed discussion with you.....................
Very slight thread creep for which I apologise (and rather than continuing a done to death thread) - regarding your flawed Police ASU arguement the reason the Observor isn't viewed as crew is due to:
The full text can be found here:
http://www.caa.co.uk/docs/1428/Summa...INAL9Mar10.pdf
or in the ANO
From knowledge comes a greater understanding
Having had the lightbulb moment that you're more than likely 'ChopperJockey' on another rotary forum. And not wishing to get in to another detailed discussion with you.....................
Very slight thread creep for which I apologise (and rather than continuing a done to death thread) - regarding your flawed Police ASU arguement the reason the Observor isn't viewed as crew is due to:
Definitions (Article 255 (1))
4.1 Passenger
A passenger is defined in the Order as a person other than a member of the crew. Crew means members of the flight crew, cabin attendants and persons authorised to supervise training and carry out tests. It will be appreciated that observers, cameramen and other persons carried to operate particular pieces of equipment on board an aircraft will, if they do not fall within the definition of crew, be passengers. In so far as payment has been made to enable them to be carried it will be a public transport flight.
4.1 Passenger
A passenger is defined in the Order as a person other than a member of the crew. Crew means members of the flight crew, cabin attendants and persons authorised to supervise training and carry out tests. It will be appreciated that observers, cameramen and other persons carried to operate particular pieces of equipment on board an aircraft will, if they do not fall within the definition of crew, be passengers. In so far as payment has been made to enable them to be carried it will be a public transport flight.
http://www.caa.co.uk/docs/1428/Summa...INAL9Mar10.pdf
or in the ANO
From knowledge comes a greater understanding
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: Pennsylvania, USA
Age: 57
Posts: 321
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Childrens Hosp
We serve Childrens' Hospital here in Philadelphia USA (CHOP) and use a BK117B1 as it accomadates the isolette easier, together with 3 specialist crews. We seem quite busy moving to collect babies around the N.E area...
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Just south of the Keevil gap.
Posts: 308
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Stiil at it..
Two people were collecting ( and seemed to be doing quite well) for The Childrens Air Ambulance at our local Morrisons store today. It turns out that they had been there all week. Their promotional display material carries a large picture of of an MD902 with a colour scheme very reminiscent of the GOSH logo/colours.
No registration was visible on the pic, and when questioned, the male collector was unable to provide any firm information.He thought it might have been G-TCAA, but that does not appear in GINFO.
I have found one site which indicates it uses a Cabair S-76 based at Elstree but it is the only entry in the list which does not give an aircraft registration.
Does anyone know if this charity actually operates a helicopter, or have carried out any infant transfers as their collectors and promotional material claim?
I made the store management aware of some of the content of this thread, and was told that the charity was on the list of approved charities complied by the Morrisons head office, so the local management were unable to do anything.
No registration was visible on the pic, and when questioned, the male collector was unable to provide any firm information.He thought it might have been G-TCAA, but that does not appear in GINFO.
I have found one site which indicates it uses a Cabair S-76 based at Elstree but it is the only entry in the list which does not give an aircraft registration.
Does anyone know if this charity actually operates a helicopter, or have carried out any infant transfers as their collectors and promotional material claim?
I made the store management aware of some of the content of this thread, and was told that the charity was on the list of approved charities complied by the Morrisons head office, so the local management were unable to do anything.
Join Date: Sep 2001
Location: UK
Posts: 741
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Maybe the fundraisers would like to send the money direct to MoD since the SARForce already provides this service 24/7 around the UK. I have done more hospital transfers than I can shake a stick at and many of those were for sick children. The NHS just has to make a case to ARCCK that the medical condition of the patient requires helicopter transfer.
Apart from the 139s at Portland and Lee, all the SAR aircraft are large and can transport a full medical team with incubators, ventilators, monitors etc etc in relative comfort - the S-92 has its own oxygen system as well.
So why should anyone think there is a need for a dedicated Children's AA? A waste of time and money that could be used supporting normal AAs.
Oh and just for chopjock - I did one last year from Bude to Bristol at night in 50 gusting 60 kts - fancy that in an R44 or other light single?
Apart from the 139s at Portland and Lee, all the SAR aircraft are large and can transport a full medical team with incubators, ventilators, monitors etc etc in relative comfort - the S-92 has its own oxygen system as well.
So why should anyone think there is a need for a dedicated Children's AA? A waste of time and money that could be used supporting normal AAs.
Oh and just for chopjock - I did one last year from Bude to Bristol at night in 50 gusting 60 kts - fancy that in an R44 or other light single?