Rescue 115 at Heathrow

Storm 10

Shannon Coastguard Helicopter Rescue 115 heading back home after a trip to London Heathrow, I presume it's a medical mission.

January

Transplant possibly?

washman3

How long would it take 115 to go from Shannon/Limerick to London Heathrow.?
If it is a transplant why didn't it fly straight to the hospital over there.?
No-fly zone around the hospital maybe.?

Peregrine

That's odd. IAC must not have had any aircraft available.

Negative_G

Peregrine wrote: »

That's odd. IAC must not have had any aircraft available.

Unless of course the mission originated from the Limerick/Munster area. Then it would be far more practical to use a local asset and crew rather than launch a crew from Baldonnel.

January

washman3 wrote: »

How long would it take 115 to go from Shannon/Limerick to London Heathrow.?
If it is a transplant why didn't it fly straight to the hospital over there.?
No-fly zone around the hospital maybe.?

Not a lot of the London hospitals have helipads.

Storm 10

Looking at its track on Marine Traffic it landed at Terminal 4
By the way guys Rescue 115 has a brilliant page on Facebook with pictures, video and taskings, it's got a huge following of over 50k and over 300.000k look at the site

https://www.facebook.com/SAR115/

January

https://www.facebook.com/SAR115/?fref=ts

You can follow them on FB by the way.

Negative_G

I would be interested to see how much CHC charge the Dept of Health for these missions considering they already receive the equivalent of €240,000 per base per week from the tax payer.

afatbollix

Negative_G wrote: »

I would be interested to see how much CHC charge the Dept of Health for these missions considering they already receive the equivalent of €240,000 per base per week from the tax payer.

They can take all they want when it saves a life. If they have to have the surgery in London it is most likely a child or a double transplant. Only a hand full of surgeons in the world can do this.

man98

They do these missions from time to time when there is nothing in Baldonnel to transport patients. I remember from when R117 (EIWF based) did it that it took 90 minutes from gate to gate, quite impressive for a helicopter it must be said.

Stovepipe

They can shift, those S92s, despite their size...... I was on two Casa medical airlifts in my time in the Don and ATC will usually give you the shortest most direct routing possible and the ambulance will be waiting at the stand and the medics will have the patient off and away in short order.

Storm 10

Rescue 115 have put up some pictures and a video along with details of the tasking this morning on their Facebook page

sjb25

Storm 10 wrote: »

Rescue 115 have put up some pictures and a video along with details of the tasking this morning on their Facebook page

https://www.facebook.com/SAR115/posts/1784869878429874

January

afatbollix wrote: »

They can take all they want when it saves a life. If they have to have the surgery in London it is most likely a child or a double transplant. Only a hand full of surgeons in the world can do this.

I'm pretty sure Lars Nolke can do heart and lung adult transplants here but not 100% on that.

BorneTobyWilde

How much fuel can it carry, would take 500 litres to do it >?

Storm 10

BorneTobyWilde wrote: »

How much fuel can it carry, would take 500 litres to do it >?

The Coastguard helicopters have extra capacity fuel tanks fitted for long range missions

Some specs here

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sikorsky_S-92

Negative_G

afatbollix wrote: »

They can take all they want when it saves a life. If they have to have the surgery in London it is most likely a child or a double transplant. Only a hand full of surgeons in the world can do this.

Completely agree with you regarding cost.

However, given the cost of the contracts, I believe this is something that should be done in addition to their primary roles at no extra cost. But this of course is between the Dept and CHC.

The current contract is a political fiasco which boiled over as a result of certain ranks in Baldonnel throwing their toys out of the pram when they were tasked with SAR. The minister at the time made a decision which we continue to live with.

No disrespect to the fine men and women of CHC who are handsomely paid for their services, they do a great job.

I'd rather the Air Corps receive the investment which CHC have received. Had it been properly managed and implemented it would've been the smart choice.

CaptainSkidmark

I'm pretty sure it was there about 3-4 weeks ago also. Maybe im wrong with the Particular aircraft.

Storm 10

CaptainSkidmark wrote: »

I'm pretty sure it was there about 3-4 weeks ago also. Maybe im wrong with the Particular aircraft.

If you follow the Coastguard they post missions after completion ,

Info below from Rescue 116 Facebook

R115-Heathrow, R116-Heathrow, R115-Newcastle upon Tyne, R117-RAF Brize Norton, R117-RAF Northolt, R116-Bristol, R116-Heathrow.

Irish Steve

Negative_G wrote: »

Completely agree with you regarding cost.

However, given the cost of the contracts, I believe this is something that should be done in addition to their primary roles at no extra cost. But this of course is between the Dept and CHC.

While we don't know the exact details, I would like to hope that the costs incurred in a medical evacuation of this nature will be limited to the additional operating costs, which will cover things like fuel, landing fees and the like, with maybe a contribution towards the airframe operating costs. The crew costs are effectively already covered.

The current contract is a political fiasco which boiled over as a result of certain ranks in Baldonnel throwing their toys out of the pram when they were tasked with SAR. The minister at the time made a decision which we continue to live with.

I think we're being economical with the truth here, there was a well reported incident where an AC helicopter crashed on the South East coast when operating in a SAR role, and some of the issue was that they were using equipment that was not suitable for the role, and the cost of getting that equipment and training to the standard needed was going to be very high.

No disrespect to the fine men and women of CHC who are handsomely paid for their services, they do a great job.

I'd rather the Air Corps receive the investment which CHC have received. Had it been properly managed and implemented it would've been the smart choice.

It would be nice to see the Air Corps fulfilling a wider role, but I suspect that the costs of achieving that objective would be significantly higher than the costs of using CHC to provide the service, for all sorts of reasons, and the harsh reality is that even though we keep being told that the economy is recovering and improving, the state is still spending more per day than it is taking in from the taxpayer, so there is no room at all for increasing the spend by the Government.

Klunk001

Irish Steve wrote: »

It would be nice to see the Air Corps fulfilling a wider role

As I understand it, the reason IRCG are carrying out so many of these flights to the U.K is because the IAC are struggling to fulfill current roles due man power levels. Flight crews are leaving to take up jobs in civie land.

Stovepipe

not just pilots; plenty of other staff leaving.

Negative_G

Irish Steve wrote: »

While we don't know the exact details, I would like to hope that the costs incurred in a medical evacuation of this nature will be limited to the additional operating costs, which will cover things like fuel, landing fees and the like, with maybe a contribution towards the airframe operating costs. The crew costs are effectively already covered.




I think we're being economical with the truth here, there was a well reported incident where an AC helicopter crashed on the South East coast when operating in a SAR role, and some of the issue was that they were using equipment that was not suitable for the role, and the cost of getting that equipment and training to the standard needed was going to be very high.



It would be nice to see the Air Corps fulfilling a wider role, but I suspect that the costs of achieving that objective would be significantly higher than the costs of using CHC to provide the service, for all sorts of reasons, and the harsh reality is that even though we keep being told that the economy is recovering and improving, the state is still spending more per day than it is taking in from the taxpayer, so there is no room at all for increasing the spend by the Government.

My understanding, and I am open to correction, is that when engaged on these type of missions in the absence of the Air Corps, a fee per flight hour is accrued in addition to fuel and other ancillary costs.

I am well aware of the circumstances surrounding 248. There was a multitude of issues regarding that particular crash. The equipment they were using had nothing to do with it in that circumstance. Four men lost their lives as a result of political and heirarchial pressure in addition to being caught in the mission bubble. A completely avoidable tragedy. Easy said in hindsight.

What about the decades of previous service in an equally unsuitable aircraft without any fatalities. No 3 Ops wing has received the most Distinguished Service Medals in the entire Defence Forces as a direct result of SAR Ops. This wasn't by accident.

The corporate knowledge existed at a time in the Air Corps. The lives saved and the medals earned by the crews is testament to that.

Up until the CHC SAR contract was Awarded, the primary focus of Air Corps Helicopter Operations was SAR. That was their modus operandi and allowed them to train to carry out their task. Once that role was removed, the focus turned elsewhere, the result being 6 civilian helicopters painted green to support the army in the domestic environment. Aircrew retire and then you are now left with a knowledge gap. While this is difficult to replace, it is not impossible.

The Air Corps had teething problems with EAS (another polticial exercise) four years ago in 2012. They are now providing an invaluable service to isolated communities all over the country.

I firmly believe that €500million over 10 years is more than sufficient to acquire helicopters, infrastructure and personnel to carry out the same function. In fact I believe it could be done for significantly less.

As with anything political, it requires someone with a genuine interest and understanding and a pair of balls. The easier option is the popular choice, just renew the contract.

The next time you consider the government coffers, ask yourself why the Government contributes €600m in overseas aid annually. Some of beneficiaries even have their own space programmes.

Danbo!

Negative_G wrote: »

I would be interested to see how much CHC charge the Dept of Health for these missions considering they already receive the equivalent of €240,000 per base per week from the tax payer.

My daughter had a transplant in Crumlin in May. German donor, you'll be delighted to hear they used EI-699 DUS-DUB and the nurse who did the transport was put up in a 3-star hotel the night before collection.

Even followed the flight back to Dublin the night before transplant

Negative_G

Danbo! wrote: »

My daughter had a transplant in Crumlin in May. German donor, you'll be delighted to hear they used EI-699 DUS-DUB and the nurse who did the transport was put up in a 3-star hotel the night before collection.

Even followed the flight back to Dublin the night before transplant

I sincerely hope that your daughter is doing well since her transplant.

I'm not sure what the focus of your post was. Organ harvests are carried out by civilian passenger aircraft on a routine basis. I'm not a medical expert by any means but if they deem it acceptable then so be it.

Other organs or procedures which are time critical require immediate transportation and in that instance, any available asset should be used.

My issue is the fact that the government didn't see the need to include such operations in the CHC contract, to the best of my knowledge. If they weren't getting paid for it, they wouldn't be doing it.

Psychlops

Great work done again by IRCG, as seen in their FB Posts a lot of the trips to the UK are time critical.

Stovepipe

@negative G, the thing about Military SAR is that you ended up with a cumbersome manpower/rostering/control system, unaccounted costs (as all costs were lumped into the Defence budget), waste as a normal factor of military life and lots of inefficiencies built in. The Mil establishment for even a small SAR unit was way above what a civvie SAR unit uses and would probably have a paper staff of a Commandant, several Flight sergeants, sundry sergeants and corporals and a few airmen. very unwieldy... The pilots were not dedicated SAR pilots and flew other jobs and had desk jobs outside their SAR flying; the aircrew were similar in that they could also be jobbed for other tasks when not on SAR, the only exception being that they did not do Guard duties; SAR got priority for food but even that was cumbersome as they had to have 24 hr access to food; flying clothing was not 24 hr so if you needed anything outside of daytime hours, tough (if you came back from a job covered in blood or body matter, the clothing had to be destroyed--unless you have experienced a military storeman's mentality, you haven't lived); technical manpower cover was poor, as the AC never had enough qualified techs on hand and even in the Dauphin era, relied on a small cadre of people with type ratings; the Don SAR relied heavily on Senior Tech NCO ranks, which was very costly in terms of pay; the SAR in the Don(and other bases) depended on the Duty Driver and his van for vehicular movement....if he was otherwise engaged, the entire crew had no vehicle if they needed to move anywhere. The concept that a modern day SAR crew would have no vehicle to transport kit, oxygen, tools, clothing etc is insane but that was what prevailed......I wouldn't let the Don run a SAR setup unless they were able to duplicate the CHC setup. Militaries are inherently overmanned.

Klunk001

Negative_G wrote: »

My issue is the fact that the government didn't see the need to include such operations in the CHC contract, to the best of my knowledge. If they weren't getting paid for it, they wouldn't be doing it.

Negative _G, unless you have seen what is in the contract the above is irrelevant.

I wouldn't be loosing too much sleep over this. As I understand it, it isn't going to change anytime soon. It looks to me that when NACC look for a patient / organ transfer they have a list of of assets they can request. IAC fixed wing and rotary, Air Lingus, Private fix wing operator, IRCG.

As I understand it, recently IRCG helis are been tasked by MRCC on behalf of NACC and have seen an increase in these missions, because they are time critical and nothing else is available. Maybe the question you should be asking is why nothing else is available?

Regardless of who carries out these flights (IAC included), there will always be a cost incurred,which will be picked up but the tax payer.

At the end of the day does it really matter who flies these people for their life changing operations for the better. Why not just say job well done by whoever flies them.

Danbo!

Negative_G wrote: »

I sincerely hope that your daughter is doing well since her transplant.

I'm not sure what the focus of your post was. Organ harvests are carried out by civilian passenger aircraft on a routine basis. I'm not a medical expert by any means but if they deem it acceptable then so be it.

She's doing well, thanks

I was just making the point it's not always CHC that does these kind of transfers, which you seem to know from your more recent post, and that whether it's in the contract or not doesn't really matter as it will fall to the taxpayer in most cases either way. It may be more economical to not include it in the contract as it's tough to estimate in advance the number of trips that will be required, although I'm not filled with confidence that our government are making economical choices after spending 8 months in a hospital! But those arent A&A related, so I wont vent here

Either way, the flight/hotel/expenses incurred on the trip for my daughter were picked up by our health insurer. Not sure of the situation in the case of health insurance and CHC. Initially we were to be transferred to Newcastle for transplant, but a change in circumstances meant we got to stay here (thankfully). We didnt go down that road far enough to find out how exactly we would have been transferred, all I know is a commercial flight wouldn't have been an option.

Negative_G

Klunk001 wrote: »

Negative _G, unless you have seen what is in the contract the above is irrelevant.

I wouldn't be loosing too much sleep over this. As I understand it, it isn't going to change anytime soon. It looks to me that when NACC look for a patient / organ transfer they have a list of of assets they can request. IAC fixed wing and rotary, Air Lingus, Private fix wing operator, IRCG.

As I understand it, recently IRCG helis are been tasked by MRCC on behalf of NACC and have seen an increase in these missions, because they are time critical and nothing else is available. Maybe the question you should be asking is why nothing else is available?

Regardless of who carries out these flights (IAC included), there will always be a cost incurred,which will be picked up but the tax payer.

At the end of the day does it really matter who flies these people for their life changing operations for the better. Why not just say job well done by whoever flies them.

I may not have seen the contract but thankfully, as it is a state contract, an FOI request is all that is required.

As I said previously, my only gripe is the additional cost to perform these type of missions as they were positioned outside of the lucrative contract that was agreed.

The front line crew do a great job, no doubt. But the public having an awareness isn't a bad thing either in my opinion.

As to why the IRCG seem to be doing more recently, I have no idea. Perhaps they were the closest available asset in those instances?

Klunk001

Negative_G wrote: »

I may not have seen the contract but thankfully, as it is a state contract, an FOI request is all that is required.

As I said previously, my only gripe is the additional cost to perform these type of missions as they were positioned outside of the lucrative contract that was agreed.

The front line crew do a great job, no doubt. But the public having an awareness isn't a bad thing either in my opinion.

As to why the IRCG seem to be doing more recently, I have no idea. Perhaps they were the closest available asset in those instances?

It might be an idea for you to request one under FOI and see if it is indeed an additional cost or not?

It sounds like a great idea the public having an awareness with all the facts, maybe you could post on here when you find out all the details.

As I understand it, at the times requested for the air ambulance flights (weekends, early and late hours) they were the only assets available.

Just pulled this from the IRCG FB page,

The Coast Guard Helicopter service, operating out of bases in Sligo, Shannon, Waterford and Dublin, provide day and night Search and Rescue (SAR) services throughout the year. Coast Guard helicopters also provide day and night aeromedical support to the HSE augmenting the day time service provided by the Air Corps. As part of this service Coast Guard helicopters conducted sixty one (61) patient transfers from offshore islands. Separately the Coast Guard transferred Nine (9) patients to UK for emergency procedures mainly relating to organ transplant. Coast Guard helicopters assisted the HSE/National Ambulance Service on 258 occasions in 2016.
Coast Guard Helicopters conducted Twenty (20) Long Range offshore missions, involving casualty evacuations at ranges exceeding 100 miles from land. The longest of these missions was conducted at a range of 150 miles West of Loop Head, Co Clare on March 7th, when an injured crewman was airlifted for transfer to hospital. Overall Coast Guard Helicopters completed 886 missions which included thirty six (36) casualty evacuations at sea.
Coast Guard helicopters flew twenty three (23) suspected pollution investigation missions – arising from satellite based reports.

Negative_G

Klunk001 wrote: »

It might be an idea for you to request one under FOI and see if it is indeed an additional cost or not?

It sounds like a great idea the public having an awareness with all the facts, maybe you could post on here when you find out all the details.

As I understand it, at the times requested for the air ambulance flights (weekends, early and late hours) they were the only assets available.

I have seen the return from an FOI which is why in my earlier posts I referred to the costs incurred including a flat rate pee hour cost in addition to fuel, landing and handling charges. I did ask if anyone has anything to the contrary which made have indicated a change.

I've made my point regarding the costs given the details that I've seen. People can make of it what they will.

Storm 10

Guys does the cost really matter as long as a life is saved, how would you feel if it was a relation of yours being airlifted to hospital for a life saving operation bet the cost would not be a factor then, who cares what color helicopter turns up as long as the outcome is successful.

The politicians in this Country have wasted billions of our money on stupid things, water and eircode to name but a few, helicopter lifesaving operations are never wasted money.

Pat Dunne

Storm 10 wrote: »

The politicians in this Country have wasted billions of our money on stupid things, water and eircode to name but a few, helicopter lifesaving operations are never wasted money.

I agree with the spirit of your arguement, however I would say that it is the Civil Service, particularly the senior Civil Servants who poorly serve this country, after all they are the "permanent government ". Politicians come and go, however the Civil Service remains a constant and is seldom if ever accountable to the general public.

Away enough from me, as I feel this topic has drifted enough.

Tenger

I think we have expressed our individual opinions well enough at this point. Lets move away from discussing the costs of Govt contracts, or the position of the civil service as a govt of permanence.