HSE Air Ambulance

flazio

EMERGENCY AERO-MEDICAL SERVICE
Briefing Document

Medic475

Saw the Air Ambo leaving Sligo hospital yesterday and heading back to Athlone/Dublin direction! I take it a pt was flown there! Seems to be busy enough!

miju

not sure on how true it is but I have heard that apparently helimed has crashed / hard landed.

Has been no fatalities and the patient on board finished journey by road

cocoshovel

I dont think it was the Air Ambulance. It was an Aer Corps EC145. There was no patient on board. Of course news sources are twisting this all directions to make it sound as worse as possible :rolleyes:

ambo112

cocoshovel wrote: »

I dont think it was the Air Ambulance. It was an Aer Corps EC145. There was no patient on board. Of course news sources are twisting this all directions to make it sound as worse as possible :rolleyes:

It was definitely the ec135 in borrisolea, three crew, no details of injuries.

Topper7

EC 135, No fatalities thank God! http://www.breakingnews.ie/ireland/three-air-corps-crew-injured-as-helicopter-crashes-555914.html

civdef

The fact that the air corps doesn't have EC145s apparently hasn't been copped onto yet.

http://www.hse.ie/eng/services/Find_a_Service/ambulanceservice/news/easlaunch.html

Mr Simpson

Taken from Tipp Tatler FB page

Edit: Hope thats a bit better, it was originally a mobile pic

cocoshovel

Any bigger picture? Can barely see it

Mr Simpson

Hope thats better

David Hall

ambo112 wrote: »

It was definitely the ec135 in borrisolea, three crew, no details of injuries.

It is great to hear that there were no injuries after todays incident. However serious questions have been raised following this incident. I think it wise to allow the FACTS sink in and then have a civilised open debate as to whats in the publics interest around safety and Air Ambulance Services.

David Hall

cocoshovel wrote: »

I dont think it was the Air Ambulance. It was an Aer Corps EC145. There was no patient on board. Of course news sources are twisting this all directions to make it sound as worse as possible :rolleyes:

In fairness its hard to make an incident such as this sound worse than it is. this is a very serious incident and thankfully no one was injured. Im sure you would like to establish the FACTS and ensure all steps are taken to prevent a more serious incident occuring. The world is not conspiriing to present something any worse than it is.

Jesus Nut

The Pilot hit a wire and as a result had to make a very HARD landing. Hopefully the chopper wont be a right off.

Wires are a helicopter pilots worst nightmare! Very hard to see at times.
Bad luck

David Hall

Jesus Nut wrote: »

The Pilot hit a wire and as a result had to make a very HARD landing. Hopefully the chopper wont be a right off.

Wires are a helicopter pilots worst nightmare! Very hard to see at times.
Bad luck

Maybe bad luck, good luck no one was injured. Important INDEPENDNT review carried out to ensure this is minimised in the future. This is a risky buisness but there are ways to reduce risks. This requires INDEPENDENT oversight and regulation.

crackcrack30

Well done to the pilot for keeping the chopper some way controled for a feet first landing.............

David Hall

crackcrack30 wrote: »

Well done to the pilot for keeping the chopper some way controled for a feet first landing.............

Well said

civdef

David Hall wrote: »

It is great to hear that there were no injuries after todays incident. However serious questions have been raised following this incident. I think it wise to allow the FACTS sink in and then have a civilised open debate as to whats in the publics interest around safety and Air Ambulance Services.

In the interests of transparency, are you the same David Hall who has been campaigning to run an alternative air ambulance service?
If so, bit early to be jumping on the bandwagon, no?

ambo112

Much better image.

adam88

David Hall wrote: »

Jesus Nut wrote: »

The Pilot hit a wire and as a result had to make a very HARD landing. Hopefully the chopper wont be a right off.

Wires are a helicopter pilots worst nightmare! Very hard to see at times.
Bad luck

Maybe bad luck, good luck no one was injured. Important INDEPENDNT review carried out to ensure this is minimised in the future. This is a risky buisness but there are ways to reduce risks. This requires INDEPENDENT oversight and regulation.

Yes it does require oversight and regulation. They have it and it's called the aviation authority. Accidents happen

Hooch

civdef wrote: »

In the interests of transparency, are you the same David Hall who has been campaigning to run an alternative air ambulance service?
If so, bit early to be jumping on the bandwagon, no?

The same DH that owns a Private Ambulance service???

joeKel73

ambo112 wrote: »

Much better image.

This helicopter is marked 270 on the back.

Yet the air ambulance helicopter from the launch photos and the one I photographed at UCHG had 271 on the back....







I see we have two (other?) EC135 helicopters (apart from the Garda ones) - they're used for pilot training - would have assumed only one was kitted out for this service? Or was this one not the air ambulance as being reported?

David Hall

adam88 wrote: »

David Hall wrote: »

Jesus Nut wrote: »

The Pilot hit a wire and as a result had to make a very HARD landing. Hopefully the chopper wont be a right off.

Wires are a helicopter pilots worst nightmare! Very hard to see at times.
Bad luck

Maybe bad luck, good luck no one was injured. Important INDEPENDNT review carried out to ensure this is minimised in the future. This is a risky buisness but there are ways to reduce risks. This requires INDEPENDENT oversight and regulation.

Yes it does require oversight and regulation. They have it and it's called the aviation authority. Accidents happen

The point is this Service is not regulated under the irish aviation authority that's the issue. It should!

David Hall

civdef wrote: »

David Hall wrote: »

It is great to hear that there were no injuries after todays incident. However serious questions have been raised following this incident. I think it wise to allow the FACTS sink in and then have a civilised open debate as to whats in the publics interest around safety and Air Ambulance Services.

In the interests of transparency, are you the same David Hall who has been campaigning to run an alternative air ambulance service?
If so, bit early to be jumping on the bandwagon, no?

I note that my name appears as it is and most others do not. There is. I bandwagon . I've been openly and transparently campaigning for a regulated service . Even the HSE own Controll staff have gone on record with their safety concerns as to how it's been run. Independent regukation required for both road and air ambulance services In the interest of tranpearancy as you say.

David Hall

Hooch wrote: »

civdef wrote: »

In the interests of transparency, are you the same David Hall who has been campaigning to run an alternative air ambulance service?
If so, bit early to be jumping on the bandwagon, no?

The same DH that owns a Private Ambulance service???

Yes the very same

David Hall

civdef wrote: »

David Hall wrote: »

It is great to hear that there were no injuries after todays incident. However serious questions have been raised following this incident. I think it wise to allow the FACTS sink in and then have a civilised open debate as to whats in the publics interest around safety and Air Ambulance Services.

In the interests of transparency, are you the same David Hall who has been campaigning to run an alternative air ambulance service?
If so, bit early to be jumping on the bandwagon, no?

Funny you should raise tranpearancy , who are you?

Morpheus

David Hall wrote: »

civdef wrote: »

David Hall wrote: »

It is great to hear that there were no injuries after todays incident. However serious questions have been raised following this incident. I think it wise to allow the FACTS sink in and then have a civilised open debate as to whats in the publics interest around safety and Air Ambulance Services.

In the interests of transparency, are you the same David Hall who has been campaigning to run an alternative air ambulance service?
If so, bit early to be jumping on the bandwagon, no?

Funny you should raise tranpearancy , who are you?

Good man David. Chopper down not even 24 hrs and you've got the knives out. FYI the IAA seized all evidence almost immediately yesterday to carry out the investigation.

This accident could've occurred t any stage to any provider. Something to remember. Air Corps crews are highly professional people and don't take risks any more than a civil aviation crew would in this role.

Let's let the dust settle and see what the facts are before we pull out soap boxes and start promoting our agendas eh?

The air ambulance kit can quickly be loaded onto a variety of choppers including the 2 EC 135s or the 6 AW 139s operated by the aircorps. It's a modular fit. The aircorps still has those remaining 7 helis to draw on for contingency.

Tango Alpha 51

Good man Hall. On your soap box already. FYI ambulance service staff have been Garda vetted prior to 2007. I should know know because I had to get vetted back in 2001. Equally the phecc inspection you alluded to in your scurrilous article in the Irish Daily Mail covered more than cpg approval for the ambulance service. It also covered training records, staff records, vehicle maintenance logs amongst others. The voluntary ambulance organisations are being audited this year. Your doing nothing else but scare mongering & stop putting your self out there as a peoples champion as all your interested in is making a profit !!!!!!!.

Hooch

David Hall wrote: »

Yes the very same

David you have a vested interest in this. Simple as that. I'll always take what your say/post with a pinch of salt. Id recommend any poster to do the same.

David Hall wrote: »

Funny you should raise tranpearancy , who are you?

He doesn't have to tell you. He's a well established, well known and very well respected poster/person in this ES community. Your not. Simples

adam88

Hooch wrote: »

David Hall wrote: »

Yes the very same

David you have a vested interest in this. Simple as that. I'll always take what your say/post with a pinch of salt. Id recommend any poster to do the same.

David Hall wrote: »

Funny you should raise tranpearancy , who are you?

He doesn't have to tell you. He's a well established, well known and very well respected poster/person in this ES community. Your not. Simples

Not on boards.ie only joined yesterday

TylerIE

David Hall wrote: »

Maybe bad luck, good luck no one was injured. Important INDEPENDNT review carried out to ensure this is minimised in the future. This is a risky buisness but there are ways to reduce risks. This requires INDEPENDENT oversight and regulation.

The Air Core are perhaps the best we have in Ireland in terms of aviation, and having the Medical Service overseen by the HSE is also likely the best way to have it.

While I am often in favour of privatisation I have worked in the US system where privatisation of healthcare - particularly pre-hospital - has resulted in a financially motivated service driven by income generation rather than medical need. I was also repeatedly posting on boards about the risks associated with an air ambulance service - and was even practically slated for mentioning how the almost monthly crashes in the US. A lot of them have been attributed to running calls in inappropriate conditions due to targets/management pressure.

I note that this is the second time you have called for Independant assessment - is your issue with the Air Core providing the aircraft/pilots or with the HSE providing the medical service? Or is it that you would prefer the option you announced in December 2011? What was the reason behind wanting to sue the air corps for providing the service? Surely the HSE is the best provider for Medical Services, and have appropriate oversight for the medical end of things?

I also recall a few years ago that there was talk of your company providing an Air Ambulance, how come there is such sudden interest and grandstanding when the HSE actually gets on board and provides it? Or is it because you didnt get to tender for a programme where one State Agency is assisting another State Agency in providing an Emergency / Essential Service?

Paulzx

David Hall wrote: »

Maybe bad luck, good luck no one was injured. Important INDEPENDNT review carried out to ensure this is minimised in the future. This is a risky buisness but there are ways to reduce risks. This requires INDEPENDENT oversight and regulation.

Are you alleging the IAA are not independant?

The Air Corps have been bringinging the IAA in for crash investigations for a number of years now even though they legally don't have to.

This seems like an INDEPENDANT investigation to me

Paulzx

David Hall wrote: »

The point is this Service is not regulated under the irish aviation authority that's the issue. It should!

Neither is the Garda helicopter. Do you want that grounded too? Or maybe we could get your company to run it

Paulzx

David Hall wrote: »

. Independent regukation required for both road and air ambulance services In the interest of tranpearancy as you say.

There is. It's called PHECC.

What else do you suggest? Privatise PHECC?

Blackbolt19

adam88 wrote: »

Not on boards.ie only joined yesterday

I believe Hooch was referring to Civdef Adam.


Now as for Mr Hall. I find it very interesting that no one can seem to see that what is happening is basic business studies 101 as the Americans would say. The first rule of business, discredit your competition at every opportunity. The fact that the "business" in question is saving lives does not seem to matter to Mr Hall and the fact that an emergency service should not be run as a profit making business but rather a service again does not seem to matter. There are a certain breed of individuals , (not singling anyone out in particular Mr Hall in case you say that this is a personal attack), who will always put profit first. This breed do well in business but the search for profit needs to be tempered with common human decency, a decency which seems to be sorely lacking in some people, (again not referring to anyone specifically). The question has been asked frequently about the financial viability of emergency services such as the Air Ambulance and others. If it is run as a profit making business and run with casualty care to the forefront then it will not be as profit making as it could be, hence in the business world it would be considered as not financially viable. If one the other hand it was run with profit to the fore it would indeed be a very valuable business.

I will leave you to draw you own conclusions on Mr Halls statements regarding the Air Ambulance crash and his calls for independent oversight and regulation, (which already exists) and the business reasons behind those calls.

I will only quote Mr Hall once and highlight one word in one statement.

Originally Posted by David Hall
Maybe bad luck, good luck no one was injured. Important INDEPENDNT review carried out to ensure this is minimised in the future. This is a risky buisness but there are ways to reduce risks. This requires INDEPENDENT oversight and regulation.

Nuff said.

goldie fish

J o e wrote: »

This helicopter is marked 270 on the back.

Yet the air ambulance helicopter from the launch photos and the one I photographed at UCHG had 271 on the back....







I see we have two (other?) EC135 helicopters (apart from the Garda ones) - they're used for pilot training - would have assumed only one was kitted out for this service? Or was this one not the air ambulance as being reported?

The kit(Lifeport I think) can be swapped between either aircraft. There is also an air ambulance kit for the other Air Corps Helicopters.

adam88

adam88 wrote: »

Hooch wrote: »

David Hall wrote: »

Yes the very same

David you have a vested interest in this. Simple as that. I'll always take what your say/post with a pinch of salt. Id recommend any poster to do the same.

David Hall wrote: »

Funny you should raise tranpearancy , who are you?

He doesn't have to tell you. He's a well established, well known and very well respected poster/person in this ES community. Your not. Simples

Not on boards.ie only joined yesterday

My bad my bad

Sorry Hooch

David Hall

Morphéus wrote: »

David Hall wrote: »

civdef wrote: »

David Hall wrote: »

It is great to hear that there were no injuries after todays incident. However serious questions have been raised following this incident. I think it wise to allow the FACTS sink in and then have a civilised open debate as to whats in the publics interest around safety and Air Ambulance Services.

In the interests of transparency, are you the same David Hall who has been campaigning to run an alternative air ambulance service?
If so, bit early to be jumping on the bandwagon, no?

Funny you should raise tranpearancy , who are you?

Good man David. Chopper down not even 24 hrs and you've got the knives out. FYI the IAA seized all evidence almost immediately yesterday to carry out the investigation.

This accident could've occurred t any stage to any provider. Something to remember. Air Corps crews are highly professional people and don't take risks any more than a civil aviation crew would in this role.

Let's let the dust settle and see what the facts are before we pull out soap boxes and start promoting our agendas eh?

The air ambulance kit can quickly be loaded onto a variety of choppers including the 2 EC 135s or the 6 AW 139s operated by the aircorps. It's a modular fit. The aircorps still has those remaining 7 helis to draw on for contingency.

The department of transport were on scene not the Aviation Authority. They are not the same. Always the same defensive soap box waffle when an alternative view being given. The HSE Controll supervisors committed to writing their safety concerns . It's not about a pilots ability to fly its about oversight and regukation no matter who is providing the Servive.

David Hall

Tango Alpha 51 wrote: »

Good man Hall. On your soap box already. FYI ambulance service staff have been Garda vetted prior to 2007. I should know know because I had to get vetted back in 2001. Equally the phecc inspection you alluded to in your scurrilous article in the Irish Daily Mail covered more than cpg approval for the ambulance service. It also covered training records, staff records, vehicle maintenance logs amongst others. The voluntary ambulance organisations are being audited this year. Your doing nothing else but scare mongering & stop putting your self out there as a peoples champion as all your interested in is making a profit !!!!!!!.

Same waffle different forum. The HSE has stated that 50% of HSE ambulance staff NOT garda vetted. You could not have been vetted in 2001 as vetting unit not open then you may have had a local sergeant say you were of good character . As my article said those who have nothing to fear generally welcome regukation and standards. Cpg inspections not adequate. Oh and a former chief ambulance officer from the HSE carried out the inspection on behalf of Phecc! Nice one! Oh and he the CEO of the only private ambulance company who had their cpg statue cancelled by Phecc. Nothing to do with profit , safety and a level playing pitch.

TylerIE

David Hall wrote: »

The department of transport were on scene not the Aviation Authority. They are not the same. Always the same defensive soap box waffle when an alternative view being given. The HSE Controll supervisors committed to writing their safety concerns . It's not about a pilots ability to fly its about oversight and regukation no matter who is providing the Servive.

How would oversight and regulation have prevented this incident?

Is this public knowledge the concern raised by these control supervisors? If not how are you aware of it? If its an internal HSE document is it appropriate to bring it to a public forum? and more importantly how did you get access?

Tango Alpha 51

Don't be so presumptuous that you think you know everything about Pre Hospital Emergency Care in Ireland. Your a fine one to talk about being defensive. Every time someone says something you don't like, it threats of legal action etc. You were happy to make money off the HSE / NAS in the good times but now that the ambulance service is finally sorting itself out & by your own admission your down 40% of your business, let's not bull**** people & maintain that your all about patient safety etc. Throwing in smokescreens of controllers being worried etc is exactly that. If you fling enough **** at a wall some of it is bound to stick. Your concerned about your bottom line profit pure & simple. At every opportunity you take a swipe at the HSE/NAS/DFB & now the Aer Corp. you cast aspersions on the members of the aforementioned services at every opportunity. I have neither the time nor the inclination to debate this matter further with you as you are blatantly against those of us who work in the sector no matter what way you wish to dress up your comments. Your not interested in a level playing field at all you my dear sir are always on the "soapbox" spouting your waffle!!.

TylerIE

David Hall wrote: »

Oh and a former chief ambulance officer from the HSE carried out the inspection on behalf of Phecc! Nice one! Oh and he the CEO of the only private ambulance company who had their cpg statue cancelled by Phecc. Nothing to do with profit , safety and a level playing pitch.

Wasnt the "Public Representative" on the PHECC Board a few years ago also the owner of a Large Private Ambulance Service?

I wonder did they accept that position in order to ensure a "level playing pitch".

David Hall

Paulzx wrote: »

David Hall wrote: »

Maybe bad luck, good luck no one was injured. Important INDEPENDNT review carried out to ensure this is minimised in the future. This is a risky buisness but there are ways to reduce risks. This requires INDEPENDENT oversight and regulation.

Are you alleging the IAA are not independant?

The Air Corps have been bringinging the IAA in for crash investigations for a number of years now even though they legally don't have to.

This seems like an INDEPENDANT investigation to me

Go to a computer and google irish aviation authority and this should explain my point . This is who is charged with protecting civilians , that's us, for aviation safety . The air ambulance service despite transporting patients has avoided this regulation and opted for their own private rules of the military.

David Hall

Tango Alpha 51 wrote: »

Don't be so presumptuous that you think you know everything about Pre Hospital Emergency Care in Ireland. Your a fine one to talk about being defensive. Every time someone says something you don't like, it threats of legal action etc. You were happy to make money off the HSE / NAS in the good times but now that the ambulance service is finally sorting itself out & by your own admission your down 40% of your business, let's not bull**** people & maintain that your all about patient safety etc. Throwing in smokescreens of controllers being worried etc is exactly that. If you fling enough **** at a wall some of it is bound to stick. Your concerned about your bottom line profit pure & simple. At every opportunity you take a swipe at the HSE/NAS/DFB & now the Aer Corp. you cast aspersions on the members of the aforementioned services at every opportunity. I have neither the time nor the inclination to debate this matter further with you as you are blatantly against those of us who work in the sector no matter what way you wish to dress up your comments. Your not interested in a level playing field at all you my dear sir are always on the "soapbox" spouting your waffle!!.

Same old same old ! Defensive then throw tantrum then throw toys. Not interested in a real debate that's the problem . I'm not thinking you have to agree but not to debate!

Just because I run a private company does not mean I don't promote safety.

I would fund any independent inspection of all companies

David Hall

TylerIE wrote: »

David Hall wrote: »

Oh and a former chief ambulance officer from the HSE carried out the inspection on behalf of Phecc! Nice one! Oh and he the CEO of the only private ambulance company who had their cpg statue cancelled by Phecc. Nothing to do with profit , safety and a level playing pitch.

Wasnt the "Public Representative" on the PHECC Board a few years ago also the owner of a Large Private Ambulance Service?

I wonder did they accept that position in order to ensure a "level playing pitch".

Read the minutes of the meetings

Paulzx

David Hall wrote: »

Go to a computer and google irish aviation authority and this should explain my point . This is who is charged with protecting civilians , that's us, for aviation safety . The air ambulance service despite transporting patients has avoided this regulation and opted for their own private rules of the military.

Funny how you haven't complained about this situation as it pertains to the Garda chopper and its being operated like this for over 10 years.

Why didn't you mount a campaign against this?

Methinks i know the answer

Delancey

I note with interest the comments by Alan Shatter that he doesn't know when the service will resume , is it possible that may change to if it resumes I wonder ?

Morpheus

hmmm... was thinking about his comments and I can only assume that the air corps will ground the other EC135 until an initial investigation can rule out any technical problem with the damaged aircraft that may have caused it to impact with the wire / pylon, one which could potentially manifest itself in the second EC135 and cause a similiar accident.

Once this is ruled out (and most likely it will be) as being a factor in the accident, then they will be in a position to put the other EC135 back on mission.

Klunk001

Just wondering what the costings were for setting up a HEMS service. In all likelyhood that airframe is now written off, after fourteen days into what is a twelve month trail period. There are reports and I stress reports that the helo in question is now locked up and under armed guard, if that is the case, why?

That is a loss of approx 4 to 5 million euro to the state as these aircraft being military are not insured.

There is an active thread on a popular uk aviation forum discussing this accident. It is not showing the IAC in a very good light I'm afraid.

David Hall

Paulzx wrote: »

David Hall wrote: »

Go to a computer and google irish aviation authority and this should explain my point . This is who is charged with protecting civilians , that's us, for aviation safety . The air ambulance service despite transporting patients has avoided this regulation and opted for their own private rules of the military.

Funny how you haven't complained about this situation as it pertains to the Garda chopper and its being operated like this for over 10 years.

Why didn't you mount a campaign against this?

Methinks i know the answer

Many representations were made re garda heli and search and rescue. Foi them. The team of which I am a member that proposed a not for profit hens service did that it proposed a service involving many organisations under irish aviation regulation on a not for profit Basis including being staffed by the HSE . The objective was clear to provide a service in line with international best practice not on a comercial basis. You need to know the facts really , assumptions dangerous.

adam88

Klunk001 wrote: »

Just wondering what the costings were for setting up a HEMS service. In all likelyhood that airframe is now written off, after fourteen days into what is a twelve month trail period. There are reports and I stress reports that the helo in question is now locked up and under armed guard, if that is the case, why?

That is a loss of approx 4 to 5 million euro to the state as these aircraft being military are not insured.

There is an active thread on a popular uk aviation forum discussing this accident. It is not showing the IAC in a very good light I'm afraid.

Link???