Aeromedical accidents

• Previous message: Aeromedical accidents
• Next message: Aeromedical accidents
• Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]

I am actually more of an advocate of the safety changes needed than I am for
the reform of the use of the helicopters.  It is just that I also support
those measures and that is more widely discussed on here, hence the apparent
discrepancy.  I could not agree with you more Lorick.

On Thu, Oct 16, 2008 at 8:43 AM, Lorick Fox, PA-C <Lorick at lorick.org> wrote:

> Let me try this another way
> If there are pilot pressures leading to unsafe operations, then it needs to
> be stopped.
> If there are unsafe helicopters, they need to be pulled from the sky.
>
> Reducing operations is the WRONG way to approach this.
> Fewer operations, under unsafe conditions, will STILL result in dead
> people.
>
> These are our colleagues, and friends, out there.
> The attention of all involved needs to be fixing the SAFETY issues, not
> diverted by medical judgment call questions.
> If there is an unsafe medical device on the market, we don't approach the
> problem by reducing it's indications, we remove it from the market.
>
> There must be ONLY one individual able to decide if a flight goes - that's
> the pilot (who also is responsible for deciding of the aircraft is
> airworthy, BTW.)
> It would be nice if the folks doing triage were always right...it would be
> nice if the referring and accepting physician on a transfer were always
> right... but helicopters are fairly safe so when the medical side of the
> equation providers are wrong, the risk should still not exceed potential
> benefit.
>
> This is EXACTLY analogous to surgery - there is ONE person who decides if
> surgery is a good idea - the surgeon.
> If that surgeon has excessive bad outcomes, then the surgeon gets looked
> at.
> You can't have a regulatory panel telling surgeons when they can operate.
> You shouldn't try to reduce surgical mortality by allowing unsafe practices
> but reducing surgeries.
> You can't have someone other than the pilot decide to fly or not fly, once
> the medical system asks if the flight can be made.
>
> We need to speak with ONE voice, and NOT about utilization - we need to
> speak about unsafe operations.
> I would rather see all aeormedical transfers stopped pending safety reviews
> than have us delude ourselves, and the FAA/NTSB, that the medical side of
> the operation is using poor judgment and that is somehow responsible for
> crashes.  It is NOT!
> AFTER the crashes stop, THEN we can address appropriate use concerns.
>
> If we want to facilitate profit motivated operators by making aeromedical
> operations more complex and confusing to regulators and safety people,
> continue to talk about evaluating appropriateness of operations.
> If you want our colleagues to be alive, demand safe flying....
> This is NOT impossible....
>
> Lorick
>
>
>
>
>
> --
> trauma-list : TRAUMA.ORG <http://trauma.org/>
> To change your settings or unsubscribe visit:
> http://www.trauma.org/index.php?/community/
>



-- 
Stephen L. Richey, CRT
Aviation Injury Research Project Leader
Saginaw Valley State University
Work E-mail: slrichey at svsu.edu
Home Office Phone: 248-366-4452

"It is the characteristic excellence of the strong man that he can bring
momentous issues to the fore and make a decision about them. The weak are
always forced to decide between alternatives they have not chosen
themselves."- Dietrich Bonhoeffer

• Previous message: Aeromedical accidents
• Next message: Aeromedical accidents
• Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]