Emergency flights shouldn't put rescuers in jeopardy

[jimmnn]

By GARY HARMON
The Daily Sentinel (Grand Junction, CO)

Wednesday, January 09, 2008

Eagerness to save injured people has too often cost the lives of rescuers, U.S. Rep. John Salazar, D-Colo., said Wednesday.

With a St. Mary's Hospital CareFlight helicopter as a backdrop, Salazar said he has introduced a measure that will put limits on when emergency-medical crews can take to the air.

"There's no sense in putting a crew in danger to save a patient," Salazar said.

Salazar was accompanied by Adam Wells, a western Colorado ranch manager whose wife, Jenny, died Jan. 11, 2005, when the aircraft she was flying out of Steamboat Springs to Rawlins, Wyo., crashed.

Had her craft completed the trip to pick up a patient, it would have been prevented by federal rules from taking off with the patient aboard, Wells said.

"It was just so senseless when they couldn't legally pick up the patient," he said. "If they had waited, they would have lost 20 minutes, but three people wouldn't have been killed."

Salazar, a member of the House Transportation Committee, said the crash was one of three in the past three years in his 3rd Congressional District, which spans most of the Western Slope and much of southern Colorado.

Emergency-medical crews can fly without patients under one set of rules that allows them to fly in hazardous weather conditions. More stringent rules, however, kick in when they have patients aboard.

Salazar's bill would unify the two sets of rules, prohibiting flights in dangerous weather without patients, just as they do now on flights with patients.

Salazar was approached with the bill by friends and relatives of pilots, flight medics and nurses, as well as Dustin Duncan, chief flight nurse for St. Mary's CareFlight.

The same group has a safety advocacy Web site, www.safemedflight.org, supporting the passage of Salazar's measure, H.R. 3939.

"It's a small community of people who have lost loved ones," Duncan said.

Salazar has support from Rep. John Doolittle, R-Calif., he said.

 

[n0doz]

Just what we need. More laws.
Loss of life is certainly sad, but you cannot legislate it out of existence. Let EMS decide what they can and can't do, not politicians!

 

[firescannerbob]

Just what we need. More laws.
Loss of life is certainly sad, but you cannot legislate it out of existence. Let EMS decide what they can and can't do, not politicians!

Evidently the airborne EMS folks are not making very good decisions. The flight referenced in the article is a perfect example of crappy decision making. Why make the trip out if they knew they couldn't bring the patient back?
The number of medical flights that crash every year is alarming, and apparently the industry is doing a piss-poor job of policing itself.
While I typically agree that less government is better government, sometimes you need some regulation.

 

[n0doz]

Poor judgment will always exist, no matter how many laws are put in place. And other than prohibiting flying altogether, there's no 100% safe method of flying EMS flights. Plus, the feds (especially the FAA) tend to come up with "rules" that apply to all, but don't fit all circumstances.
I'll go along with stiffer regulation of who does the flying, determining who's qualified, what training is required for EMS flyers, etc., but after that, the pilot still should determine the "when to fly," not some government bureaucrat.

 

[captaincraig44]

I highly doubt they would have flown out to pick up the patient if they knew they couldn't fly them back. Whether or not they knew they couldn't legally pick them up could be debated. Either someone (probably more than one) disregarded the regs and sent the flight anyway, or those same people was honestly unaware that it would be illegal to make the return flight. Either way, since they were sent out, they had every intention of flying back with the patient.

 

[firescannerbob]

This regulation is a pretty simple one, and just "evens" up the rules between flying without and with a patient. I don't think it's a big deal, and certainly isn't very onerous.
The competition in some parts of the country is driving some of these poor decisions, and it's been well documented over the last several years.
If the industry had done a better job of policing itself, government intervention wouldn't be necessary.

 

[cstockmyer]

Just what we need. More laws.
Loss of life is certainly sad, but you cannot legislate it out of existence. Let EMS decide what they can and can't do, not politicians!

I have to agree with n0doz on this one. Most politicians would not stop and help someone in need on the side of the road, well unless it's an election year and there are cameras around. They need to leave this to the professionals that face situations like this everyday.

 

[rcvmo]

Listening to Our UM SF Helo this morning on the airbands, and heading out to an entrapment, these guys have someone watching in the A2 tower real close. If there's something not right the tower will let them know if they're gonna fly.
rcvmo

 

[donc13]

In theory, and fact...the pilot has the final determination of if it is safe to fly or not. No matter what the "rules" state...if the pilot is unsure of their ability and/or the aircraft's ability, they can refuse the flight. Period.

No pilot is going to take off if they don't think they're going to make it to the other end of their flight. It's the pilot's responsibility to check weather conditions on their route and base the go-nogo decision on known conditions.

Not being able to take off from the destination with a patient onboard isn't much of a consideration. The company and/or pilot could have thought they'd save time by pre-placing the aircraft near the patient, so that when conditions DID clear, they would have less time to wait to depart with the patient. Think of it this way...if it's a 2 hour flight in either direction....they can wait until the weather is clear near the patient..then take the 4 hour trip. Or, they can fly to the patient, and wait for the weather to clear and now it is only a 2 hour trip.

This is legislation that doesn't need to exist.