Comments on: Deadly car crash followed by deadly EMS helicopter crash. What could be worse than that?

By: JW

JW — Sun, 19 Oct 2008 17:57:19 +0000

BTW, I live close to my local hospital, and despite it not being a major trauma center, I still hear the choppers quite often. Maybe they use them a little more than some would say necessary, but its actually a little comforting to me to know that some of the people that get lifted don’t always fit loosely in a five gallon bucket.

By: JW

JW — Sun, 19 Oct 2008 17:36:45 +0000

I’m not an expert on any of this NVG, and the article I read didn’t mention it like the one you all did; but I do know that upgrading cockpits for compatability with NVG is or was a big deal in some military aircraft. Would be interesting to know if the pilots were even capable of usuing NVG in that aircraft; otherwise…

By: Dan

Dan — Tue, 07 Oct 2008 19:56:26 +0000

As a navy helicopter pilot I’ll be happy to throw 2 cents in here.

The Pilot is responsible for safe operation. Period. NVGs are not for use in IMC (instrument meterological conditions (like FOG)). To fly with NVGs, the operator must assure safety of the pilot and crew, meaning that you can’t throw goggles on a pilot (many of whom would rather have the comfort of headphones vice the safety of goggles since most of the pilots flew in vietnam and most of their flight hours without them) like you throw a GPS on your car windshield without extensive approval by numberous regulatory authorities. As the FAA is knee-deep in regulation-lapses dating back to the mid-1960s, I doubt that there is little the EMS helo world can do about regulatory issues.

There is also a constant tug-of-war of mission accomplishment (important in military ops, who is the majority of your pilots) and safety (important to civilian ops). The latter takes precidence, but it’s hard to tell a pilot who spent most of his/her life learning mission accomplishment. Another reason it goes back to the pilot’s fault…he/she should know better than flying visually in bad weather…but it’s hard to say no to potentially saving a life.

What these guys/gals do is noble, none-the-less. Criticism should be of their decisions, and good people make bad decisions…and most of the helo pilots I know, are very good people. Even though it’s their fault, don’t blame them…be proud that there are people who will do dangerous stuff to save others.

By: affrodite

affrodite — Thu, 02 Oct 2008 04:36:09 +0000

Thanks to all of you for stopping by and starting such an engaging discussion.

I can’t speak to the technical aviation side of medevac helicopters to comment on the validity of CNN’s research, however, I do share Tim’s point of view regarding the rationale behind determining whether it’s medically necessary. In a nutshell…better safe than sorry, right?

By: Tim

Tim — Wed, 01 Oct 2008 03:22:33 +0000

How many of those studies showing what is/isn’t medically necessary are Monday Morning Quarterbacking; done after the fact after significantly more tests that aren’t available in the back of an ambulance are completed. When someone falls off a ladder & later walks out of the hospital, EMS personnel can’t tell if they have a spinal injury or not. Where I worked, there were significant protocols that had to be met, including amount/type of damage in a motor vehicle crash before a flight could be requested.
I remember one call where we called for flight service because the combative patient appeared to be intoxicated & we found a bicycle in the road. Did he fall off his bike or was he hit by a car in a hit & run? Was he combative because he was drunk or because he had a life threating head injury? Being in the back with him jeopardized our safety. Calling for a helicopter, with their access to sedative drugs to put him to sleep that we aren’t allowed to carry was the way to go. After being sedated & flown to the hospital, tests revealed no head injury or cranial bleeding. Was this “medically necessary” since the outcome, discovered later, was that he was drunk & fell off his bike? Probably not. If either we had an MRI in the back of the ambulance or the protocols to give sedative drugs, we wouldn’t have asked for a helicopter. However, until these things change, we’ll continue to use helicopter transports

By: Steve

Steve — Wed, 01 Oct 2008 00:17:37 +0000

And the MSM has failed to report that multiple research studies show that more than half of all helicopter transports are medically unnecessary. People are needlessly dying so that hospitals can maintain the glamor and prestige of having helicopter transport. Strict criteria need to be developed to determine who really needs to be transported by extremely expensive (often >$10,000) and potentially dangerous helicopter transports.

By: rfw1028

rfw1028 — Wed, 01 Oct 2008 00:07:55 +0000

What a ridiculously one-sided and under researched story. 1st and 2nd generation NVGs are widely available, 3rd generation are expensive but available. As a former Marine Corps aviator, I have a couple hundred hours of rotary wing time under NVGs. This story is very misleading and filled with hidden agenda. The idea is to promulgate the notion that people are dying in this country because of the war-time demand for NVGs. Is it obvious to only myself, that if NVGs are lifesavers here, they must serve a similar function for combat pilots? Are their lives less important than EMS? Flying under NVGs is extremely tricky and not some trivial “pimp-my-ride” upgrade that happens over the weekend. The Marines have lost a number of good men because of the unique hazards associated with NVG flying. And finally, NVG systems do nothing for “low visibility”. They are not infrared devices capable of seeing through fog. NVG won’t do a thing for someone in a blizzard, heavy rain or fog, no matter how dark it is. This is just another example of pathetically bad MSM journalism. These people never fail to find a correlation between all that’s bad in the world and some Republican policy. CNN, your credibility is now less than zero, if that’s possible.

By: M25

M25 — Wed, 01 Oct 2008 00:05:50 +0000

As someone who has been an avionics tech for over 25 years, on helicopters and for the military, I think it is a little misleading to point the finger at the military for implying that they are “Hogging” all the NVG’s, as CNN’s headline implies. Mission evaluation, crew training and situational awareness are far greater reasons at this point. Are we to believe that a pilot’s defense after flying into IFR conditions on a VFR flightplan is going to be “I couldn’t see because it’s the military’s fault”? Are you serious? Also for the record, there are many other models of NVG’s out there, not just the latest and greatest ones. If this is such a huge factor then why not obtain retired 2nd or 1st generation NVG’s? They worked just fine for our services for decades. I think that this is just another attempt by CNN at sensationalism, with a bit of anti-military crap thrown in for good measure. Plan the flight and fly the plan. I agree that these EMS entities need increased standards, not lower ones.

By: R. Shaw

R. Shaw — Wed, 01 Oct 2008 00:03:56 +0000

More of these crashes are happening because air evac is being abused. Many times in both Delaware and Maryland, papers report accident victims with NON-LIFE THREATENING injuries being airlifted to local hospitals. A couple of reasons why they need to more conservative with airlift; its expensive, and flying is an inherent risk to begin with. MilSpec NVGs can’t be bought at Walmart, and NVGs don’t stop planes or choppers from crashing. I agree with Connie, don’t blame DoD but I agree for different reasons!

By: Connie

Connie — Tue, 30 Sep 2008 23:50:53 +0000

This article/report by CNN is ill-researched. NVGs are available on the civilian market. CNN is blaming negligence by civilian agencies on the military. NVGs are not “classified” equipment. Check any sporting goods store.