Flight Paramedic observation/shadowing

[Bloom-IUEMT]

Does anyone know of any companies or hospitals that will allow EMTs to be a student observer for their operations? I'm not currently a flight paramedic student, just an EMT-B who is curious as to what the day to day is for a FL-P. And I REALLY like aviation!

 

[Shishkabob]

CareFlite here in DFW allows 3rd riders, so long as they meet the height/weight requirements.

 

[TransportJockey]

None of the ones in NM will allow passengers.

 

[Bloom-IUEMT]

Okay, thanks! I justed to make sure it wasn't unheard of before I start calling and asking companies.

 

[subliminal1284]

I think the service here does it but there is a very long waiting list.

 

[usafmedic45]

Yeah, a multi-million dollar lawsuit after stupid pilot behavior tends to make your insurance company tell you no on letting non-employees ride along.

CareFlite here in DFW allows 3rd riders, so long as they meet the height/weight requirements.

Also, be prepared to get dumped off on-scene or at the hospital if they need to lose some weight to get safely airborne.

Okay, thanks! I justed to make sure it wasn't unheard of before I start calling and asking companies.

No one in Indiana allows it that I'm aware of unless they are interviewing you as a potential flight paramedic and you aren't there yet. That said, the only HEMS operator in the state I would even consider flying with is Clarian Lifeline and that was their policy last time I heard anyone talk about it. You could not pay me to even set foot in an Air Evac Lifeteam helicopter. I value my life too much to every consider going up with the operator with the worst safety record given its fleet size of any commercial helicopter operator still in the air today, HEMS or otherwise. Even then, their helicopters are so underpowered that they have a hard enough time getting off the ground with a fat patient and their own paid crew, let alone an observer, especially on hot days.

There was a reason my EMS medical director made it a policy to consider it an immediate termination offense and Class A protocol violation (meaning he would go after your credentials for unprofessional conduct; never had to do so...people took him at his word and didn't test him) to even call for an AEL helicopter because of the risk associated with their involvement in a call under his jurisdiction. As he put it, "If they (AEL administration) want blood on their hands, go for it. It won't be on mine or those of anyone who works under me. That I will see to."

I'm not currently a flight paramedic student

You mean a "paramedic student". I don't believe there is a formal training program for "flight paramedic" outside of those given by a company once someone in hired. I know there's one for flight nurses, but have not heard of anything for flight paramedics. Normally getting hired takes several years of experience at a high-volume ground ALS service, the alphabet soup of certifications (ACLS, PALS, AMLS, etc) usually at the instructor level, a college degree (a lot of my friends who work for reputable HEMS operators say you are well served to have at least a bachelors degree), etc to even get your foot in the door. Having additional credentials (nursing, RT, etc) does not hurt.

And I REALLY like aviation!

So do I...that's why I do aviation safety research. As someone who has flown both fixed-wing and helicopter medical transfers, it's something I want to help with to protect my colleagues and friends.

Get to da choppa!

Snce you are doing this to check it out as a possible career, keep in mind you're talking about a career path that involves a 40-some (46% if memory serves me) chance of being involved in an accident that results in the death or serious injury of yourself or someone else on board over the course of a twenty year period...assuming you can handle the stress, noise (kiss your tone-based hearing goodbye), deaths of friends and colleagues, low pay, long hours, etc of the job to last that long. It's not fun and games: the bulls**t that you hear about ground ambulance services still goes on, only it's amplified because if they tell the pilot "fly or you're fired" (they won't admit to it for legal reasons, but it happens quite frequently both directly and indirectly) and you take off into weather you have no business being up in the chances of you living through it are not good.

It's not a "gee-whiz guys, what a cool thing", "Get in da chopper" sort of thing. Contrary to what you hear from aeromedical services (especially the for-profit ones) there is no evidence HEMS makes any difference in outcomes for patients, especially those flown directly from scenes, unless you are otherwise facing a prolonged (>90 minutes in most cases) ground transport. Calling for the helicopter actually DELAYS getting the patient to the hospital in most cases. So ask yourself-and think about this long and hard: am I willing to die to no make a difference for a patient? Am I willing to put my parents/girlfriend/wife through the grief of outliving me so I can have a "cool job"? These are not things the average 18-22 year old (taking a guess on your age since I recall you being a college student), let alone with the risk taking tendencies that leads to an interest in EMS in the first place, ask themselves or even have cross their minds. Just remember, it's not a game, it's not an adventure: it's a deadly serious occupation. Ask Steve Bunker, Dell Waugh, Sandra Pearson, James Taylor, Jana Bishop, Michael Sanchez or Darren Bean how much of a "get in da chopper" sort of world HEMS is. Oh wait...you can't because they are all the friends I lost in one year to HEMS crashes. The full toll for that year (not counting several patients killed as well) according to the National EMS Memorial was:
1-Steve Bunker
2-Dell Waugh
3-Sandy Pearson
4-James Taylor
5-Jana Bishop
6-Michael Sanchez
7-Darren Bean
8-Ronald Battiato
9-William Mann
10-Bruce Harrolle
11-Mickey Lippy
12-Tonya Mallard (a ground EMT killed while riding along with Maryland State Police hauling two patients with MINOR injuries from a MVA; both patients were walking around talking on their cell phones before the helicopter showed up).
13-Roger Warren
14-Wade Weston
15-Tom Caldwell
16-Tom Clausing
17-Patrick Graham
18-Shawn Shreeve
19-Wayne Kirby
20-Stephanie Waters
21-Mark Coyne
22-Steve Lipperer
23-Robert Goss
24-Raul Garcia

Being a flight paramedic on a medical helicopter usually ranks at the top of "most dangerous occupations" right behind commercial loggers and Bering Sea fisherman. In 2008 being a flight paramedic/nurse was the deadliest job in America. Someone should do a show "Deadliest Medically Unnecessary Transports"....

Sorry if that all seemed a little heavy-handed. I just want you to have a honest and (more importantly) fact-based view of what you think you want to get yourself into. In closing, if you really want to fly, do it on a fixed-wing service. You will be much safer and your life insurance premiums will be a lot less as a result. If you want to talk about doing ride-alongs with a fixed wing service, send me a PM and I will see about getting permission to do so with the operation I work with. It's non-emergent critical care transfers but it would give you good experience as to what medical care in the air is like.

 

[Hal9000]

Yeah, a multi-million dollar lawsuit after stupid pilot behavior tends to make your insurance company tell you no on letting non-employees ride along.

Incredibly well said. Aviation is an area that demands professionalism and safety; general aviation and HEMS are both rather dangerous, which many don't fully appreciate.

As far as shadowing, I'm not sure what your density altitudes will be, but the weight and balance issues are monumental considerations. I know of many that simply have a cut-off date for any extra souls on board for that reason.

 

[usafmedic45]

Actually general aviation is much safer than what most people expect. It's a fallacy that small planes crash at any exceptional rate. The safety record, while still sporting room for improvement (anything with a rate of more than 0% incidents or accidents has such needs), is enviable and much lower than the rates of accidents associated with driving or even being a hospital patient. Granted, it doesn't have the remarkable record of US commercial aviation over the past few years but it is certainly not a hobby with unmanagable or excessive risks.

As far as shadowing, I'm not sure what your density altitudes will be, but the weight and balance issues are monumental considerations.

Here in Indiana, unless you're running a very underpowered machine (such as a Bell Long Ranger) or very heavily laden one, DA doesn't become a major issue until late summer. But you do bring up an excellent point.

 

[Hal9000]

Very interesting topic.

Actually general aviation is much safer than what most people expect. It's a fallacy that small planes crash at any exceptional rate. The safety record, while still sporting room for improvement (anything with a rate of more than 0% incidents or accidents has such needs), is enviable and much lower than the rates of accidents associated with driving or even being a hospital patient. Granted, it doesn't have the remarkable record of US commercial aviation over the past few years but it is certainly not a hobby with unmanagable or excessive risks.



Here in Indiana, unless you're running a very underpowered machine (such as a Bell Long Ranger) or very heavily laden one, DA doesn't become a major issue until late summer. But you do bring up an excellent point.

I was only referencing the comparison between general aviation and commercial, which many people I've met see as being at the same safety rate , but by doing so, I imagine that I've rather underestimated the knowledge of our members here. My apologies.

To go on a stroll through memory lane and look at some obscurity in an area in which I'm remarkably unversed, I once read an article from Flying about 7 years ago-I know, very recent indeed-comparing the two, and I believe that statistically general aviation produced more fatalities per instance than driving; the closest info I can find is the Nall reports, which showed that, 6 years ago, these stats were true (extrapolated by Meretrix technologies, and I have no idea why, plus I don't wish to go sorting through my old magazines) :

"Choosing "mile to mile" as the more appropriate comparison for differing modes of transportation (and overlooking that small planes often takeoff and land at the same airport, without ever really "going anywhere"), let's review the fatality rates:

* driving: 1.32 fatal accidents and 1.47 fatalities per 100 million miles
* airlines: .05 fatal accidents and 1.57 fatalities per 100 million miles
* GA: 7.46 fatal accidents and 13.1 fatalities per 100 million miles "

For 1) above, we do have the statistics, but how do we gauge 2)? We know how many accidents there are, and how many fatalities, so we can calculate the average number of fatalities per fatal accident. This yields:

* driving: 1.1 fatalities per fatal accident
* GA: 1.7 fatalities per fatal accident
* airlines: 31 fatalities per fatal accident"

The most recent Nall report shows a sharp decrease in general aviation, fixed-wing accidents. It does note this, which I found interesting in relations to rotorcraft:

"Commercial helicopter flight time, on the other
hand, was the highest in the past decade at 1.48
million hours, more than double the estimated
levels in 2001 through 2003. This made up 6% of
total GA time, but commercial helicopters were
only involved in 2% of the accidents, fatal and
otherwise. Of 32 accidents, seven were fatal, killing
28. Commercial fixed-wing accidents were the
most survivable: Only 12% were fatal, compared
to 19-22% for non-commercial fixed-wing and helicopters.
However, the number and rate of commercial
fixed-wing accidents were the highest since
2000, and the 31 resulting fatalities was the highest
number since 2002.
The volume of non-commercial helicopter activity
remained close to its ten-year average, but the
2008 total of 118 accidents was easily the lowest
in that period, 21% below the 1999-2007 average.
However, 20% of these were fatal, a higher
lethality rate than any year since 2000, which was
also the last year with more individual fatalities.
Sharp improvements in accident rates since 2002
have been matched or even outdone by commercial
operators, so that the accident and fatal
accident rates in non-commercial flights remain
about three times higher than in commercial rotorcraft
operations."
​

So, I'm not sure what data to use or with what to make a comparison. The data for motor vehicles includes pedestrian fatalities, making an accurate comparison fairly subjective. I suppose that on a "per operator" basis the statistic might flip, so maybe my labeling it as "rather dangerous" went too far. Something interesting to consider, however, is that using a NHTSA/FAA comparison between driving miles and flight miles in general aviation, general aviation comes out as the more deadly. With that said, I imagine that one is more likely to be seriously/critically injured in a motor vehicle accident. Food for thought, and an enjoyable exercise.

Honestly, flying around is a much larger risk to my pocketbook than to my life, unless I'm with a physician who likes some Dutch roll.


http://www.aopa.org/whatsnew/stats/safety.html

http://www-fars.nhtsa.dot.gov/Main/index.aspx

http://www.aopa.org/asf/publications/09nall.pdf


But going on, some of our companies use smaller side-loaders. While the AStar is a lot prettier than a EC-135, in my opinion, it also doesn't have much room in the first place; neither does the Bell 407. During the summer, I really wouldn't mind living a mile closer to sea level.

Last little discussion, now. One 407 suffered suffered a complete loss of engine power after taking off from the pad in a snowstorm. Somehow they managed to crash down and slide back onto the pad without anyone dying. Close call and a reminder that a good safety record doesn't make one invincible. Reading the report makes it initially seem heroic, but the end is sobering:

"While conducting EMS operations the helicopter sustained substantial damage after a loss of engine power, autorotation, and forced landing. The pilot reported hearing a loud bang, followed by the engine spooling down. The helicopter collided with a chain link fence during the forced landing sequence. Postaccident inspection of the engine revealed an uncontained second stage turbine wheel burst (on-speed) as a result of oil starvation and subsequent bearing failure.
...
On-speed failure of the second stage turbine wheel as the result of engine oil starvation. The lack of maintenance oversight was a contributing factor."

The accident occurred right after maintenance, and was on the first flight. The pilot did a run up and did not see the oil being lost. It's a reminder to always keep safety first.

 

[Bloom-IUEMT]

There was a reason my EMS medical director made it a policy to consider it an immediate termination offense and Class A protocol violation (meaning he would go after your credentials for unprofessional conduct; never had to do so...people took him at his word and didn't test him) to even call for an AEL helicopter because of the risk associated with their involvement in a call under his jurisdiction. As he put it, "If they (AEL administration) want blood on their hands, go for it. It won't be on mine or those of anyone who works under me. That I will see to."

Thanks for ruining my dreams!!! Lol j/k. I have NO intention whatsoever to be a flight medic or nurse and I am aware to some degree of HEMS terrible track record which is why I only intended to do a single "ride along" so to speak. It is mostly out of curiosity and a love of the practice of medicine. If I could, I'd probably shadow everyone just to see what they do.

So do I...that's why I do aviation safety research. As someone who has flown both fixed-wing and helicopter medical transfers, it's something I want to help with to protect my colleagues and friends.

Interesting. I "research" aviation accidents as a sort of spare-time internet hobby and find it fascination.

Snce you are doing this to check it out as a possible career, keep in mind you're talking about a career path that involves a 40-some (46% if memory serves me) chance of being involved in an accident that results in the death or serious injury of yourself or someone else on board over the course of a twenty year period...assuming you can handle the stress, noise (kiss your tone-based hearing goodbye), deaths of friends and colleagues, low pay, long hours, etc of the job to last that long.

Begs the question: then why do YOU do it? And if there is a 46% fatal/severe injury rate why doesn't the FAA step in and do some FAAing.

It's not a "gee-whiz guys, what a cool thing", "Get in da chopper" sort of thing.

Get to da choppa has nothing to do with anything besides comical Bavarian accents

Contrary to what you hear from aeromedical services (especially the for-profit ones) there is no evidence HEMS makes any difference in outcomes for patients, especially those flown directly from scenes, unless you are otherwise facing a prolonged (>90 minutes in most cases) ground transport. Calling for the helicopter actually DELAYS getting the patient to the hospital in most cases.

Then why do we in EMS utilize it so much? I am not disagreeing with your assessment I'm just curious as to why a very-high risk/minimal benefit transport is being utilized with such frequency. Perhaps another example of wasteful medical spending?

These are not things the average 18-22 year old (taking a guess on your age since I recall you being a college student)

27 actually and not average lol B)

12-Tonya Mallard (a ground EMT killed while riding along with Maryland State Police hauling two patients with MINOR injuries from a MVA; both patients were walking around talking on their cell phones before the helicopter showed up).

How did the EMT on the ground get killed?

If you want to talk about doing ride-alongs with a fixed wing service, send me a PM and I will see about getting permission to do so with the operation I work with. It's non-emergent critical care transfers but it would give you good experience as to what medical care in the air is like.

I appreciate that and I think I'll take you up on that offer. Thanks for the advice as well I am sufficiently scare :unsure: and this discussion has piqued my interest on why HEMS is so unsafe.

 

[usafmedic45]

I was only referencing the comparison between general aviation and commercial, which many people I've met see as being at the same safety rate as the airlines, but by doing so, I imagine that I've rather underestimated the knowledge of our members here. My apologies.

No worries. I was just trying to make the point that it is not a major problem. We are talking about a problem that claims about 750 people a year (ballpark figure for the sake of argument) out of the thousands of active pilots.

The problem with making comparisons between modalities is that multi-faceted:
-No good data for actual mileages in both cars and general aviation due to underreporting.
-Underreporting of accidents (mostly minor) on both fronts
-The underreporting or misclassification of delayed mortality (example: someone gets in a car accident, suffers multi-system trauma and dies from complications (renal failure for example) and gets put down on the death certificate by the local coroner or treating physician as being simply due to the kidney shutting down and leaving out the full descriptor which should be "due to renal failure as a result of blunt trauma secondary to motor vehicle trauma".
-The fact that aircraft crashes are more likely to kill those on board than car accidents which when measured against underreported numbers tends to positively skew the results (increasing the fatality rate). When you exclude ground accidents which are the aviation equivalent of fender benders, the case fatality rate (% of crashes resulting in death) ranges from 5% to 20% depending upon the particular design with a couple of statistical outliers with rates of >40% (aircraft used for aerobatics and those lacking integrity around the cockpit).
-Also the inclusion of things like gyrocopters, ultralights and homebuilt aircraft in the mix also tends to skew the fatality numbers upwards. These groups tend to have higher mortality in crashes because they are not as well protected during the crash sequence (think cars and motorcycles, or Mercedes and Ford Pinto). They also tend to engage in the higher risk side of aviation, most notably the tendency of the experimental (homebuilt) community to build aircraft that perform aerobatics. It's like lumping motocross racers into the annual motorcycle fatality numbers, when you are actually looking at two very distinct groups.

It's some really complicated stats and I'm actually working on a paper on the subject of
crash survivability.

Honestly, flying around is a much larger risk to my pocketbook than to my life

It's a costly hobby, but you're right about the risk being greater to your pocketbook. However, it isn't a "rich man's hobby" like a lot of people want to paint it (not saying you are...just pointing this out for those who are not aware). Most of us who fly are not wealthy. It's like any hobby...you scrimp and save to fly. A lot of us drive 10 year old cars to spend the money on flying. We don't work on old cars so we can fly. We don't blow our paychecks on beer and cigarettes (or at least cut back on consumption). I make a middle class wage and still find plenty of money to fly with. Next time someone tells you flying is a "rich man's hobby", realize they are full of crap.

It does note this, which I found interesting in relations to rotorcraft

You do realize those numbers are excluding the Part 135 crashes (if I recall correctly) which include the HEMS crashes with patients on board, since Part 135 is not technically "general aviation"?

 

[usafmedic45]

How did the EMT on the ground get killed?

She was taken along by the helicopter crew on the flight. MSP only flew (and I believe still does) with a pilot and single paramedic. There were two patients and they grabbed a ground provider to go along. It was a very common practice in the state that abused/abuses HEMS more than any other.

this discussion has piqued my interest on why HEMS is so unsafe.

1-Resistance from the industry to abide by true medical necessity as a standard for flights
2-Resistance from the industry to install terrain avoidance equipment on their helicopters ($$)
3-FAA refusing to force them to do #2
4-Pressure (direct or implied) on pilots to fly in order to avoid getting fired
5-Overtriage of patients by undertrained EMTS (often fed misinformation by for-profit HEMS operators) and operating from antiquated protocols based more on tradition and superstition than on science (*cough* Maryland *cough*)

Those are the big ones....

Then why do we in EMS utilize it so much? I am not disagreeing with your assessment I'm just curious as to why a very-high risk/minimal benefit transport is being utilized with such frequency. Perhaps another example of wasteful medical spending?

We are the victims of
-Very good marketing: a lot of HEMS operator have huge marketing teams who do nothing but "teach" the public and EMS about the benefits of HEMS; mostly by taking the Goebbels approach: If you can't prove something, scare or strong arm people into believing you are right. Most people are pretty gullible and will believe almost anything if you present it in the right way. Many EMTs have put their patients and their bank accounts at great risk in exchange for t-shirts, buttons, pizza, etc.
-The status quo and those amongst us who believe in tradition ("Well, we've always flown people") and who believe the lies ("The helicopter save time").

And if there is a 46% fatal/severe injury rate why doesn't the FAA step in and do some FAAing.

There's a saying in the aviation world: FAA regulations are written in blood. And it's easy for them to ignore it since you're "only" talking about 20-30 people a year. That said, the industry is going to get bit on the *** by the FAA and hard in the next couple of years if they don't get their act together. If they thought voluntary measures were going to hurt their bottom lines, mandatory ones may take a lot of the fly-by-night (no pun intended) operations out of business.

Get to da choppa has nothing to do with anything besides comical Bavarian accents

Ah...ok. Just wanted to be sure....there are a lot of people who want to be flight crew who aren't kidding about that attitude I eluded to. BTW, Schwarzenegger's Austrian, not German.

 

[Hal9000]

No worries. I was just trying to make the point that it is not a major problem. We are talking about a problem that claims about 750 people a year (ballpark figure for the sake of argument) out of the thousands of active pilots.

True, true, and I think it is fairly close to 400-450, at least per the NTSB, so not too bad at all.

The problem with making comparisons between modalities is that multi-faceted:
-No good data for actual mileages in both cars and general aviation due to underreporting.
-Underreporting of accidents (mostly minor) on both fronts
-The underreporting or misclassification of delayed mortality (example: someone gets in a car accident, suffers multi-system trauma and dies from complications (renal failure for example) and gets put down on the death certificate by the local coroner or treating physician as being simply due to the kidney shutting down and leaving out the full descriptor which should be "due to renal failure as a result of blunt trauma secondary to motor vehicle trauma".
-The fact that aircraft crashes are more likely to kill those on board than car accidents which when measured against underreported numbers tends to positively skew the results (increasing the fatality rate). When you exclude ground accidents which are the aviation equivalent of fender benders, the case fatality rate (% of crashes resulting in death) ranges from 5% to 20% depending upon the particular design with a couple of statistical outliers with rates of >40% (aircraft used for aerobatics and those lacking integrity around the cockpit).
-Also the inclusion of things like gyrocopters, ultralights and homebuilt aircraft in the mix also tends to skew the fatality numbers upwards. These groups tend to have higher mortality in crashes because they are not as well protected during the crash sequence (think cars and motorcycles, or Mercedes and Ford Pinto). They also tend to engage in the higher risk side of aviation, most notably the tendency of the experimental (homebuilt) community to build aircraft that perform aerobatics. It's like lumping motocross racers into the annual motorcycle fatality numbers, when you are actually looking at two very distinct groups.



It's some really complicated stats and I'm actually working on a paper on the subject of
crash survivability.

Regarding under reporting, I know a few people that have a "thing" against the NASA/ASRS forms, and for reasons I suppose they'll keep to themselves. Luckily, I've never needed one; the closest call I've had involved a LAHSO mishap which came down to a judgment call of the Tower and a nice intersecting runway.

Referencing the metrics, it's also hard to make a miles/miles (nm, I suppose) comparison.

It's a costly hobby, but you're right about the risk being greater to your pocketbook. However, it isn't a "rich man's hobby" like a lot of people want to paint it (not saying you are...just pointing this out for those who are not aware). Most of us who fly are not wealthy. It's like any hobby...you scrimp and save to fly. A lot of us drive 10 year old cars to spend the money on flying. We don't work on old cars so we can fly. We don't blow our paychecks on beer and cigarettes (or at least cut back on consumption). I make a middle class wage and still find plenty of money to fly with. Next time someone tells you flying is a "rich man's hobby", realize they are full of crap.

I used to fly quite a bit when I got the chance, even venturing by myself off into the vast unknown of places such as Wyoming, but the increasing cost of college, along with the need to study more and think about graduate school, has cut back on that a lot. I've also let my medical lapse. On the other hand, my medical director just got his PPL and incessantly brags about it like a small child with a new toy. ^_^

You do realize those numbers are excluding the Part 135 crashes (if I recall correctly) which include the HEMS crashes with patients on board, since Part 135 is not technically "general aviation"?

I do, and that's why I was pointing it out. The link at the bottom of my post contains all the safety rates for the different Parts; this section was relevant to the original topic, but not my digression from subject. They've also taken the time to draw up some eye-candy graphs.

 

[Bloom-IUEMT]

1-Resistance from the industry to abide by true medical necessity as a standard for flights
2-Resistance from the industry to install terrain avoidance equipment on their helicopters ($$)
3-FAA refusing to force them to do #2
4-Pressure (direct or implied) on pilots to fly in order to avoid getting fired
5-Overtriage of patients by undertrained EMTS (often fed misinformation by for-profit HEMS operators) and operating from antiquated protocols based more on tradition and superstition than on science (*cough* Maryland *cough*)

Those are the big ones....

Hmm, if I was a family member of one these victims I would smell a class action lawsuit.

Ah...ok. Just wanted to be sure....there are a lot of people who want to be flight crew who aren't kidding about that attitude I eluded to. BTW, Schwarzenegger's Austrian, not German.

Grrr....I meant Styrian accent. I'm getting my Austro-German states mixed up:wacko:

 

[Anu]

Safety Hazard

1-Resistance from the industry to abide by true medical necessity as a standard for flights
2-Resistance from the industry to install terrain avoidance equipment on their helicopters ($$)
3-FAA refusing to force them to do #2
4-Pressure (direct or implied) on pilots to fly in order to avoid getting fired
5-Overtriage of patients by undertrained EMTS (often fed misinformation by for-profit HEMS operators) and operating from antiquated protocols based more on tradition and superstition than on science (*cough* Maryland *cough*)


There's a saying in the aviation world: FAA regulations are written in blood. And it's easy for them to ignore it since you're "only" talking about 20-30 people a year. That said, the industry is going to get bit on the *** by the FAA and hard in the next couple of years if they don't get their act together. If they thought voluntary measures were going to hurt their bottom lines, mandatory ones may take a lot of the fly-by-night (no pun intended) operations out of business.
[/I]

This sounds like a very serious problem. The figures are remarkable. Are these kinds of conditions and lack of regulations unique to this particular company, or is this an ongoing issue with aeromedical systems across the nation?

 

[TransportJockey]

1-Resistance from the industry to abide by true medical necessity as a standard for flights
2-Resistance from the industry to install terrain avoidance equipment on their helicopters ($$)
3-FAA refusing to force them to do #2
4-Pressure (direct or implied) on pilots to fly in order to avoid getting fired
5-Overtriage of patients by undertrained EMTS (often fed misinformation by for-profit HEMS operators) and operating from antiquated protocols based more on tradition and superstition than on science (*cough* Maryland *cough*)


There's a saying in the aviation world: FAA regulations are written in blood. And it's easy for them to ignore it since you're "only" talking about 20-30 people a year. That said, the industry is going to get bit on the *** by the FAA and hard in the next couple of years if they don't get their act together. If they thought voluntary measures were going to hurt their bottom lines, mandatory ones may take a lot of the fly-by-night (no pun intended) operations out of business.
[/I]

This sounds like a very serious problem. The figures are remarkable. Are these kinds of conditions and lack of regulations unique to this particular company, or is this an ongoing issue with aeromedical systems across the nation?

All across the nation. The last two years have been very bloody for aeromedical.

 

[usafmedic45]

Are these kinds of conditions and lack of regulations unique to this particular company, or is this an ongoing issue with aeromedical systems across the nation?

It pretty much effects, as JTPaintball pointed out, almost every service in the nation. There are only a handful that truly make safety priority #1. Among the worst are Maryland State Police Aviation, AirEvac Lifeteam and that Hospital Wing company that just lost the helicopter in Tennessee when the pilot flew into known and forecast thunderstorm activity on a positioning flight. From what I have heard from my colleagues involved with the investigation of that crash, it's amazing they have not lost more helicopters and crews because this wasn't the first example of truly boneheaded aeronautical decision making in the history of the company.

 

[Michael]

Since your in Indiana, and if everyone has not already scared you out of flying. Clarian's Lifeline service does allow ride alongs, info is posted on their public page.

http://www.lifelinecriticalcare.com/services.html

I also know people who have flown with PHI, & Samaritan, but I'm not sure if their programs are open to the public.