NTSB to Issue Helicopter EMS Safety Recommendations

• Next message: NTSB to Issue Helicopter EMS Safety Recommendations
• Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]

In general terms 200 - 250km is the 'break even' point, where it becomes 
quicker to use a fixed wing despite the added time of secondary ground 
transfers. 50 - 200km is where helicopters tend to be quickest, less 
than 50km it is probably quicker just to drive by road.

Ian Seppelt

Greg Benton wrote:
> I am in a regional trauma service in Victoria Australia, 235km from
> Melbourne. Off the top of my head we do 80 - 90% of our tertiary center
> transport by fixed wing, 5 - 10% road, and 5 - 10 % rotary.
>
> It's a very effective means of moving people and costs way less than rotary
> wing transfers. Air Ambulance here also use King Airs I believe.
>
> Cheers
>
> Greg
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: trauma-list-bounces at trauma.org [mailto:trauma-list-bounces at trauma.org]
> On Behalf Of Stephen Richey
> Sent: Thursday, February 26, 2009 4:13 AM
> To: Trauma &amp, Critical Care mailing list
> Subject: Re: NTSB to Issue Helicopter EMS Safety Recommendations
>
> I would look at the success (and safety record) of the Royal Flying Doctor
> Service in Australia.  They actually  have been known to land their
> fixed-wing aircraft (King Airs if memory suffices) on roads to access
> patients.
>
> My main point with there being a greater utility in the use of fixed wing
> aircraft in rural areas (and I mean REALLY rural....Wyoming, New Mexico,
> northern Maine, western Kansas, North Dakota, Alaska, etc....not "Look!
> There's corn!" rural) is that they are faster over exceedingly long
> distances (once you get past a couple hundred miles as is the case when your
> closest trauma center may be Albuquerque, Denver, Salt Lake City, Portland
> or Anchorage.  In this way, they actually save time.  The secondary point to
> all of this is the reduction in the number of people unnecessarily flown
> from scenes.  It is this sort of cowboy tactic that gets crews and patients
> killed.
>
> Interhospital transfer by fixed wing aircraft- if it is taken seriously and
> implemented properly (which is currently is not in many places because of
> the reliance on helicopters)- can be an extremely effective means of moving
> the minority of patients who really need aeromedical evacuation as quick as
> possible.   Also patient care in the back of a helicopter is not easy and
> the added "comfort" of a more stable and roomy cabin offered by a fixed wing
> aircraft allows for advanced procedures to be carried out quicker and
> easier.
>
> On Wed, Feb 25, 2009 at 12:01 PM, p.bjorn at netzero.net
> <p.bjorn at netzero.net>wrote:
>
>   
>> Begs the question: how useful ARE fixed wing services in EMS?  Even in my
>> experience (rural Maine), the circumstances which at once suggest and
>> tolerate airplane transfer during the primary treatment phase are
>> exceedingly rare.  You're adding at least two vehicles and maybe three
>>     
> teams
>   
>> to the transfer process.  That consumes time and shatters continuity.
>>
>> Pret
>>
>> ____________________________________________________________
>> Put your loved ones in good hands with quality senior assisted living.
>> Click now!
>>
>>
>>     
> http://thirdpartyoffers.netzero.net/TGL2241/fc/BLSrjpYWs6vmg7XWvohDQmZ6CcIWJ
> hkzo1ToP2NY7oGfCfkHJukKzgJDQa8/
>   
>> --
>> trauma-list : TRAUMA.ORG
>> To change your settings or unsubscribe visit:
>> http://www.trauma.org/index.php?/community/
>>
>>     
>
>
>
>   

• Next message: NTSB to Issue Helicopter EMS Safety Recommendations
• Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]