air angels crash

[Kerry Lynn Dudley]

Mr. Nelson I am sorry I take exception to your air taxi comment of fixed 
wing Air ambulances. I have been flight certified for many years 20+. 
transport patients around the world. try crashing patient no land in sight 
for 3+ hours intubate , place on vent, place chest tube, run balloon pump, 
a-line, multiple pressures, pacer. then family codes on you. so Air Taxi I 
think not. In 20+ years my worst days and the sickest patients have been in 
a fixed wing jet.  RW trips shorter can usually get to destination 30 min 
can drop in to alternate facility if needed go hop the pond or south America 
were chest tubes reused and water systems still used. to little villages 
pick up person mauled buy tiger you are the  the first medical treatment 
this person receives in the dirt hut  anything close to even a clinic is 12 
hours away by ground so you are it. I have worked both FW and RW and yes 135 
does mean a safer flight the rule are much stricter flight rules if your 
pilot is not a cowboy if you look at the FAR and the strict rules of 135 
over 91 there is great difference of weather allowances' for flight or even 
to initiate a flight allot stricter flight rules apply if you do not believe 
me go to the FAA sight and check that there is a huge difference between the 
two . ask any pilot worth their salt and adheres to the 135 flight rule we 
will all be much safer, no more will medical crew be treated like luggage in 
a aircraft. Also go back for the last 5 years and see which one has a higher 
incident of crashes and/or fatalities part 91 was being flown in 63.8% of 
them.  So I think that speaks volumes in the difference it makes to safety. 
So I say every bit helps,
Ask a pilot what the true differences are, I mean the strict letter of the 
reg. also the new requirements of terrain warning devices other early 
notification systems.
Sorry 20+ years as a Aeromedical Transport Specialist  and my worst days 
with ECMO,  HFJV, balloon pumps, external pace makers. instability of 
patient and all they have is you. no land in sight for many hours. Give me a 
good multi-trauma swoop and scoop, GSW, arm deep in some ones chest with my 
finger plugging the whole in their heart, 75% burn patient airlifted off of 
boat in the territorial waters off of the east coast. both have there good 
and bad, but hop the pond or the CA to Hawaii the longest open water trip. 3 
hour from land. with a patient just as unstable as a RW patient.
Plus one of the new process FAA/NTSB is talking about goes along the line of 
critical process tree. for eval every trip. We all know that RW is overused 
and at times the patient is actually done a disservice, when a ground trans 
would have been quicker. That I think also has a hand in the increase of 
accident/incident both FW and RW.

--------------------------------------------------
From: "Michael Nelson" <manemtp at yahoo.com>
Sent: Thursday, October 16, 2008 10:16 PM
To: "'Flightmed'" <flightmed at flightweb.com>
Subject: RE: air angels crash


> The Crash this summer in Michigan, on the rooftop, had two pilots upfront, 

> a

> company pilot and an FAA examiner, didn't do much for situational 

> awareness

> that day either.

>

> NVG, don't work well in urban areas

> HTAWS, doesn’t work at all

>

> So what does work?  EDUCATION, EDUCATION, EDUCATION, and when that fails

> educate some more.

>

> Part 135 is a joke, designed for "air Taxi" not EMS.  Let's get real about

> the problem.  EMS is its own animal, and needs it own rules, with people 

> in

> the FAA who know what we do, and stop trying to make us follow flight

> attendant rules.  IMHO, it's time to scrap the entire system, and build it

> with an end result in mind, instead of throwing more useless technology at 

> a

> problem that already exists.

>

>

> -----Original Message-----

> From: flightmed-bounces at flightweb.com

> [mailto:flightmed-bounces at flightweb.com] On Behalf Of Richard D. Cook

> Sent: Thursday, October 16, 2008 9:02 PM

> To: 'Flightmed'

> Subject: RE: air angels crash

>

> No question that two pilots would increase the safety by putting another

> person with equal interpretive and decision making skills up front.

> However, I am personally aware of an EMS rotor wing crash in NC several

> years ago in which there were two pilots up front.  All souls were lost.

> This was not an unusual circumstance such as a ferry or test flight.  It 

> was

> a patient transport.  This was a program that regularly flew (and probably

> still does) with two pilot

>

>

> -----Original Message-----

> From: flightmed-bounces at flightweb.com

> [mailto:flightmed-bounces at flightweb.com] On Behalf Of Kimberly Harrell

> Sent: Thursday, October 16, 2008 8:56 PM

> To: jgodfrey at cnmc.org; Flightmed

> Cc: Karen Hersman

> Subject: Re: air angels crash

>

> What about this....at the Safety Summit in Dallas a few months ago they

> showed statistics that said there has never been a crash with two pilots 

> on

> board. I say require two pilots. Not cost effective? In my mind it is 

> worth

> it. Why aren't we requiring night vision, TAWS, etc. Minimum aircraft

> requirements? How about clear guidelines (criteria) for flying versus 

> ground

> based solely on patient condition. How about review and penalties for

> unwarranted flights? Just a few of my thoughts. Sorry but this is getting

> scary! Today I spent time wondering, was the Maryland pilot possibly one 

> of

> the great guys who taught water egress at AMTC? Was this crew today at any

> of the conferences I went to this year? Was I having fun with them 

> recently

> and now they are gone? Will we be soon at one crew a month killed? Count 

> the

> patient and we can be at one person a week! better odds than the lottery.

>  ----- Original Message ----- 

>  From: jgodfrey at cnmc.org<mailto:jgodfrey at cnmc.org>

>  To: Flightmed<mailto:flightmed at flightweb.com>

>  Sent: Thursday, October 16, 2008 10:55 AM

>  Subject: Re: air angels crash

>

>

>  Talking to ABC news today ... Any thoughts?

>  Sent from BlackBerryR Blue skies and tail winds!!

>

>  -----Original Message-----

>  From: irajb at aol.com<mailto:irajb at aol.com>

>

>  Date: Thu, 16 Oct 2008 09:51:55

>  To: <flightmed at flightweb.com<mailto:flightmed at flightweb.com>>

>  Subject: Re: air angels crash

>

>

>  Yep.

>  This sucks.

>

>

>

>  -----Original Message-----

>  From: Pedsrusscott at cs.com<mailto:Pedsrusscott at cs.com>

>  To: flightmed at flightweb.com<mailto:flightmed at flightweb.com>

>  Sent: Thu, 16 Oct 2008 6:48 am

>  Subject: air angels crash

>

>

>

>

> http://webcenters.netscape.compuserve.com/news/story.jsp?floc=DC-headline&sc

> =1110&idq=/ff/story/0001/20081016/0644487220.htm<http://webcenters.netscape.

> compuserve.com/news/story.jsp?floc=DC-headline&sc=1110&idq=/ff/story/0001/20

> 081016/0644487220.htm>

>  _______________________________________________

>  Flightmed mailing list

>  To unsubscribe or change your email address, go to

> http://six.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/flightmed<http://six.pairlist.net/m

> ailman/listinfo/flightmed>

>

>

>  _______________________________________________

>  Flightmed mailing list

>  To unsubscribe or change your email address, go to

> http://six.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/flightmed<http://six.pairlist.net/m

> ailman/listinfo/flightmed>

>

>

>  Confidentiality Notice: This e-mail message, including any attachments, 

> is

> for the sole use of the intended

>  recipient(s) and may contain confidential and privileged information. Any

> unauthorized review, use, disclosure or distribution is prohibited.

>  If you are not the intended recipient, please contact the sender by reply

> e-mail and destroy all copies of the original message.

>  _______________________________________________

>  Flightmed mailing list

>  To unsubscribe or change your email address, go to

> http://six.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/flightmed<http://six.pairlist.net/m

> ailman/listinfo/flightmed>

>

> _______________________________________________

> Flightmed mailing list

> To unsubscribe or change your email address, go to

> http://six.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/flightmed

>

> _______________________________________________

> Flightmed mailing list

> To unsubscribe or change your email address, go to

> http://six.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/flightmed

>

> No virus found in this incoming message.

> Checked by AVG - http://www.avg.com

> Version: 8.0.173 / Virus Database: 270.8.1/1728 - Release Date: 10/16/2008

> 7:38 AM

>

> No virus found in this outgoing message.

> Checked by AVG - http://www.avg.com

> Version: 8.0.173 / Virus Database: 270.8.1/1728 - Release Date: 10/16/2008

> 7:38 AM

>

> _______________________________________________

> Flightmed mailing list

> To unsubscribe or change your email address, go to 

> http://six.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/flightmed

>

>