List Archives

Tue Aug 4 19:03:18 BST 2009

The solution to this issue is passage of the Airmedical Patient Safety
Act: S 848, HR 978. This would place regulation of airmedical Rotor
Wings under states (or interstate agreements) as well as the FAA.  It is
unimaginable that a patient has regulations over their prehospital care
and transport while there are four wheels on the ground and the minute
they lift off (without consent usually) anything goes.  Are you aware of
the numerous times that two rotors try to land at the same scene at the
same time?  We hear about it all the time.  Are you concerned at all of
the number of unsafe landing sites in rural American and the lack of
uniform safety training for medics on the ground?  This is a rural
reality in the 21st Century. Unfortunately, some very powerful
private-for-profits are adamantly opposed to this rational legislation.
Who doesn't want patient safety and review of care?  What do they have
to fear?  OSEMSA already has great examples of standards for states if
and when this very reasonable bill is passed..  People have a choice to
get on a rotor to see the Grand Canyon.  When you are rushed onto a
rotor after your rollover your choice is generally fly or die. The
condition of the craft is one thing, the quality of the staff and
decision-making to fly or not is another.  Neither is more important
than the other.  In fact, the FAA findings are that most crashes are
pilot error, not MAST failure etc.    

Connie Potter, RN, MBA

-----Original Message-----
From: John Annen [mailto:rjannen at yahoo.com] 
Sent: Sunday, August 02, 2009 3:43 AM
To: Trauma-List [TRAUMA.ORG]; EMS-L at EMS-L.org
Subject: concerns regarding the airworthiness of hundreds of emergency
medicalservices helicopters

I expect this story, from Avweb's Avflash of August 1, 2009, will be of
interest to a number of list members.Regards,
John Annen

Special Counsel Accuses FAA Of Wrongdoing
The
U.S. Office of Special Counsel has written President Barack Obama and
Congress alleging that there's a "substantial likelihood that FAA
officials and employees engaged in violation of law, rule or
regulation, gross mismanagement and an abuse of authority, all of which
contributed to a substantial and specific danger to public safety." The
Special Counsel also accuses the Department of Transportation of
foot-dragging in its investigation of the allegations, which originated
with a whistleblower complaint from FAA inspector Rand Foster on July
8, 2008. Forester contends that the FAA decided, for political reasons,
against enforcing certification standards on more than 300 emergency
medical services helicopters that had non-compliant night vision
systems installed on them. The Office of Special Counsel initially gave
DOT and the FAA 60 days to answer the allegations and has granted
several extensions. On July 20 the Special Counsel decided enough was
enough and notified the government.
In his complaint, Foster says the FAA initially decided to
declare the affected helicopters unairworthy via a Notice of National
Policy. In his complaint, Foster alleged FAA brass decided against
issuing the notice because of negative publicity that arose over
alleged safety concerns at Southwest and American Airlines. "The
information disclosed by Mr. Foster reveals a substantial likelihood of
wrongdoing and raises concerns regarding the airworthiness of hundreds
of emergency medical services helicopters."

The Special Counsel's Letter is availablehere:
http://www.avweb.com/pdf/specialcounsel.pdf

List Archives

For your convenience, find the Trauma List Archive Below

Solutions regarding the airworthiness of hundreds of emergency medicalservices helicopters