Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Medevac helicopter crash tragedy in Ohio.

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #31
    Originally posted by 3WE View Post
    Three engines...four...

    Ideally we need parachutes and padding systems to make crashes much more survivable...why not that?
    The seats on our local MD902 medevac chopper are rated to survive a 47G impact. Trouble is, the cynic in me asks “What about the floor they are bolted to ?”
    If it 'ain't broken........ Don't try to mend it !

    Comment


    • #32
      Originally posted by brianw999 View Post
      The seats on our local MD902 medevac chopper are rated to survive a 47G impact. Trouble is, the cynic in me asks “What about the floor they are bolted to ?”
      The seats can be rated for 47G, the floor can be rated for 47G, the skids can be rated for 47G, the belts can be rated for 47G, but you are NOT rated for 47G, so what's the point?

      Several years ago the FAA changed the crashworthiness standard for airplanes. Now they require FIRST that under certain pre-defined crash conditions the peak acceleration doesn't exceed certain limits and THEN that the seats and supporting structure can resist that.

      --- Judge what is said by the merits of what is said, not by the credentials of who said it. ---
      --- Defend what you say with arguments, not by imposing your credentials ---

      Comment


      • #33
        Originally posted by Evan View Post
        Take the Bell 429. You have an operating expense around $1000/hour, or, factoring in all variable and fixed expenses associated with operations, around $2,500/hour. So let's be generous and say $3500/hour. Expediency being the point, many, if not most, of these bills are for an hour or less of actual service. I'm sorry, but I fail to see the ecomomic barrier to operating a Cat A, medevac helicopter there.
        Your calculation of the cost of the flight hour is meaningless.


        Emergency resources are paid for availability and used for necessity.
        You may be paying $ 15K the ride. But the helicopter is bought and you are paying the cost of the money even when parked, you are paying the hangar and the insurance even when parked, you are paying the hourly share of the annual even when parked, and you are paying the pilots even when parked, and the list goes on. Emergency resources are typically much more available than used, because nobody knows when they will be needed and they need to have enough capacity to cover peaks in demand. Since most of the time the demand is not peak, then most of the time the resources are available but idle. And when they are used, only a fraction of times they are paid (and when they are, mostly they are paid months later, again cost of money, and not in full). The few full payments and some partial payments, all of them late, need to cover the cost of these flights, the cost of the other flights where they are not paid, and the cost of being available 24/7 when nobody is needs their service. The real problem is that the service is available 24/7 for EVERYBODY, even for those who don't happen to need it (but they might need it at any minute). So for me the question is whether this should be a public service paid for with taxes, and my answer is yes. Imagine if only the people using the service of the fire department needed to pay for it and pay a price that covers the purchase of equipment (fire trucks can be more expensive than a helicopter), the fire stations, and the wages of the firemen.

        --- Judge what is said by the merits of what is said, not by the credentials of who said it. ---
        --- Defend what you say with arguments, not by imposing your credentials ---

        Comment


        • #34
          Originally posted by Gabriel View Post
          Your calculation of the cost of the flight hour is meaningless.
          The hourly figure I used is based on 300-350 hours per year, including hanger fees, insurance, pilots and training, everything. And then I padded it by $1000. Does that help?

          Looks, let's put our cards on the table here. Are you suggesting that 'lifeflight' operations in major markets cannot justify the expense of employing helicopters designed for the purpose, with OEI survivability in all phases of flight? Because that IS the issue. Why else should we allow these providers to operate on more vulnerable aircraft? Where the economics are a barrier, as I said in the beginning, any helo is better than no helo, but is that the case in markets charging bankruptcy-inducing rates for an hour of service? At $15-25K, the question is rhetorical.

          Comment


          • #35
            Gabe, in some places in the US medevac is offered by various govt agencies. but in smaller communities where there is no need for helos to begin with (and no money--even taxes--to pay for them), people have to rely on private air ambulance services which are monumentally expensive. i'm not at all familiar with how the private air ambulance services work, but i'm not sure if they respond directly to accident scenes. maybe the authorities have contact with them and when there is no govt service available they call the privates. i'm guessing in those situations, the services rarely get paid in full.

            i pay for medjet assist on an annual basis, but that only works once you're admitted to a hospital.

            Comment


            • #36
              Originally posted by Evan View Post
              The hourly figure I used is based on 300-350 hours per year, including hanger fees, insurance, pilots and training, everything. And then I padded it by $1000. Does that help?

              Looks, let's put our cards on the table here. Are you suggesting that 'lifeflight' operations in major markets cannot justify the expense of employing helicopters designed for the purpose, with OEI survivability in all phases of flight? Because that IS the issue. Why else should we allow these providers to operate on more vulnerable aircraft? Where the economics are a barrier, as I said in the beginning, any helo is better than no helo, but is that the case in markets charging bankruptcy-inducing rates for an hour of service? At $15-25K, the question is rhetorical.
              If these companies were making a lot of money with these prices, you would have ore companies offering the service and competition would bring the price down.
              I don't know what is the cost of a helicopter medevac operations, but I know what it is not. I am really wondering where did you get your cost sources from.

              I have never seen the breakdown of the cost of an actual air medevac operation, but I did rough estimates of other air operations myself. Let me do a "Feynman estimation" here in real time.

              Let's take 365 1-hour of medevac flights per year, just because you took a 300ish number (I believe a small medevac op will not make 1 flight per day on average).

              For 24/7 availability, you need minimum 2 helicopters (both because you may need to attend 2 accidents or to victims in the same accident at the same time, and because you cannot discontinue the service when one machine needs maintenance). A single turbine helicopter with medevac capability and their medical equipment is say 2.5 million dollars each. That's 5 million dollars investment. Taking a depreciation of 5 years, that's 1 million dollar per year, or $ 2,739 per medevac flight right off the bat.

              For 24/7 availability with capability to attend 2 victims at the same time, you need 8 crews. Not 8 pilots, 8 crews: 8 pilots, 16 paramedics, 8 ground technician/support crew. That's 40 ops guys/gals. Let's take a cost of 80K each (that's the company cost of paying a $ 60K-is annual salary, not just their salary). 80K * 40 / 365 = $ 8,767 per flight.

              Just because it is a nice round number (I think it is not enough), let me add $ 365K (1000 per flight) for fuel, hangar, office rental, insurance, maintenance (scheduled and unscheduled) and spare parts.
              Let's also throw in an administrative employee, a flight operations manager, a certified aviation mechanic, an operations quality manager, and a general manager (or CEO or whatever you want to call them). We don't need 8 of each, since they don't need to be available 24/7 for each helicopter (or at all). Let's take again $ 80 K each, which is probably way high for an admin but way low for the mangers. 80K * 5 / 365 = 1095 per medevac flight.

              Are you ok with profits? The owner invested 5 million (it has to be more, they will need a set of spares and tools and fixtures to begin with, as well as furnitures, uniforms, etc, etc...) for a high-tech live-or-death operations. If that doesn't leave him 10% of net profit (after tax), they will be putting their money somewhere else. 10% after tax requires about 15% before tax. 15% of 5 million is $ 765,000, or $ 2054 per flight.

              Let's add all this up: 2700+8700+1000+1100+2000= $15,500 per medevac flight.

              Wait, we are not done. Since we are taking 1 flight per day on average, let's take that as the daily cost of the operation. Let's say that on average they get paid 2 months after service, so they need a working capital of $15,500*60 = $930,000, let's take 12% annual (1% monthly) as the cost of capital and we have another $350 per day, and since I did not include other expenses, utilities, I don't know, cleaning services, whatever, let's make it just $500 per day and we reached a total bill of $16,000 per flight.

              Finally, the cherry of the cake, say that they get paid 50% of the bill on average (or let's say 33% in full, 33% 1/2, and 33% none), and suddenly you need to charge $ 32,000 per medevac flight to support operations.

              Was my calculation wrong? For sure!
              Was in one order of magnitude wrong? I doubt it.

              --- Judge what is said by the merits of what is said, not by the credentials of who said it. ---
              --- Defend what you say with arguments, not by imposing your credentials ---

              Comment


              • #37
                Originally posted by TeeVee View Post
                Gabe, in some places in the US medevac is offered by various govt agencies.
                For free?

                I am living in the US since about 4 years ago, and one thing that shocked me since I arrived here is that schools and school buses are free but hospitals and ambulances are not only paid but waaaaaayyyyy too expensive.

                In my mind (call me socialist if you will) education (at lease basic education), security (including defense), health, and justice are among the few services that need to be AVAILABLE for everyone and everyone should pay for it being AVAILABLE, to for using it. And the best way to do it is via tax.

                The 5 years-old son of a drunk dad that crashed is not at fault and should not be indebted for life for being transported in a helicopter, and I (the next guy with buying power that gets air medevaced) am not at fault neither that the drunk dad also hit me or that they could not pay for the medevac of the boy so I have to pay for both.

                I want to pay to have it available. Hopefully never use it. And not pay if I end up needing to use it.

                --- Judge what is said by the merits of what is said, not by the credentials of who said it. ---
                --- Defend what you say with arguments, not by imposing your credentials ---

                Comment


                • #38
                  Originally posted by Evan View Post
                  Are you suggesting that 'lifeflight' operations in major markets cannot justify the expense of employing helicopters designed for the purpose, with OEI survivability in all phases of flight? Because that IS the issue. Why else should we allow these providers to operate on more vulnerable aircraft? Where the economics are a barrier, as I said in the beginning, any helo is better than no helo, but is that the case in markets charging bankruptcy-inducing rates for an hour of service? At $15-25K, the question is rhetorical.
                  And by the way, no I am not suggesting that medevacs ops cannot sustain those helicopters. Maybe they can. maybe it would not make a lot of difference to the operation cost and if they can't now, they could with a relatively small increase in price.

                  Everybody estimates risks differently and has different tolerance to risk. I, in particular, if I am in such daring or delicate condition that I am in serious risk of dying and an airlift can greatly increase my odds of survival, would not mind being airlifted in a single turbine helicopter. For the following reasons:

                  - The risk of engine failure is extremely low, and the fraction of fatal crashes due to engine failure in single-turbine helicopters is also small.
                  - My exposure to that risk will be hopefully zero, or extremely low if not. I would consider the most unlikely guy in life if I need to be airlifted more than twice in my entire life.
                  - I've already decided to assume somehow similar risks. I flew in a single-engine turbine helicopter once, in a zone where there was the prospect of an off-helipad emergency landing were awful. I have more than 250 take-offs in single-engine planes, about 1/3 of those taking off over an urban area without anything to put the plane down other than your favorite 1000 sqft backyard. If "ive already decided to take these risks only for joy (and paid for it), then I am more than willing to take the same risk in an emergency situation.

                  The risk for the crew of the helicopter is different. I mean, the risk itself is the same, but their exposure is many orders of magnitude higher. However, the pilot of the medevac could be the pilot of some rich (but not super millionaire) guy flying a similar helicopter and exposed to similar risk. And neither the pilot nor the paramedics flying in the thing are forced to do that, so they are accepting the risk, of which they (especially the paramedics) should be made fully aware. And even then I don't feel fully comfortable with that, since rejecting or leaving a good job (and well paid) due to risks that, most likely, will never realize, are very hard decisions to take. If the union of the medevac paramedic, or of the medevac pilots would make a strike and riots demanding twin turbine to be made mandatory, I would not blame them, and I would also not oppose the government making such mandate, even if I personally am perfectly ok with the risk.

                  --- Judge what is said by the merits of what is said, not by the credentials of who said it. ---
                  --- Defend what you say with arguments, not by imposing your credentials ---

                  Comment


                  • #39
                    MD 902 cost new.... $7.1M

                    Operational costs...

                    FINANCIAL
                    Total Fixed Cost/Year $453,046
                    Total Fixed Cost/Hour $1,227
                    Total Fixed Cost/Unit Distance $10 /nm
                    Total Misc Cost/Year $60,951
                    Total Misc Cost/Hour $34
                    Total Crew Cost/Year $268,320
                    Total Fuel Cost/Hour $299
                    Total Mx Cost/Hour $663
                    Total Variable Cost/Year $367,958
                    Total Variable Cost/Hour $997
                    Total Variable Cost/Unit Distance $8 /nm

                    Source.. https://www.bjtonline.com/aircraft/m...d-902-explorer

                    ....and these figures don’t include the cost of conversion and equipping to medevac standard, and the cost of crew training which in the UK includes a doctor and critical care paramedic.
                    Last edited by brianw999; 2019-02-03, 10:19.
                    If it 'ain't broken........ Don't try to mend it !

                    Comment


                    • #40
                      Originally posted by Evan View Post
                      Same reason we have ETOPS. Two engines are sufficient to be reasonably safe. You see, aviation safety isn't fanatical either.
                      I'm glad to hear you say that last part, Evan. It appears that experience and engineering advancements also suggest that single-turbine helicopters are also, as you so eloquently put it, "reasonably safe". So, here we are.

                      Comment


                      • #41
                        Originally posted by brianw999 View Post
                        MD 902 cost new.... $7.1M

                        Operational costs...

                        FINANCIAL


                        ....and these figures don’t include the cost of conversion and equipping to medevac standard, and the cost of crew training which in the UK includes a doctor and critical care paramedic.
                        I also bet they don't count the cost of insurance, which I suspect is astronomical (semi-pun intended) for a medevac operator.
                        Be alert! America needs more lerts.

                        Eric Law

                        Comment


                        • #42
                          Originally posted by ATLcrew View Post
                          I'm glad to hear you say that last part, Evan. It appears that experience and engineering advancements also suggest that single-turbine helicopters are also, as you so eloquently put it, "reasonably safe". So, here we are.
                          How do we factor in that the patient needing critical care has some likelihood of not making it...moves the scale towards that one engine, I guess.
                          Les règles de l'aviation de base découragent de longues périodes de dur tirer vers le haut.

                          Comment


                          • #43
                            Originally posted by Gabriel View Post
                            And by the way, no I am not suggesting that medevacs ops cannot sustain those helicopters. Maybe they can.
                            Not only can they, the EASA requires them to. HEMS (Helicopter Emergency Medical Services) operations requires Performance Class 1 or 2 equipment, both of which must be certified CAT A.
                            The actual requirement is summarized as follows:
                            If the critical engine fails at any point in the approach path: (1) a balked landing can be carried out meeting the requirement of CAT.POL.H.315; or (2) for operations other than those specified in CAT.POL.H.305, the helicopter can perform a safe forced landing.
                            Apparently, the FAA does not require similar peformance standards, and that is what I'm addressing.

                            Is the EASA regulation wise? Absolutely. Is there an economic barrier to compliance that prevents operators from providing services to significantly-sized populations. Not in Europe. Do individual Europeans get hit with astronomical bills for these services? No. So what's the problem with the US?

                            ATLcrew touched on it. Taxpayer subsidies. Gabriel, you also touched on it. America is still the only developed nation where health care and medical transportation are not either free or assuredly affordable to everyone. Part of the high cost of heath care in the US is due to the high number of uninsured people who default on the cost of medical care. This is also passed on to health insurance rates. The solution has been in place for quite a while in other nations. Everyone must pay in to health insurance. The universal health insurance requirement lowers health care costs and makes health insurance more affordable. That includes HEMS flights, and ensures that HEMS can operate within the EASA requirements for OEI redundancy. We passed a law in 2010 requiring universal health insurance, but the subsequent Congress (a collection of populist ninnies) did everything they could to thwart it, and the Supreme Court is once again poised to overturn it. You see, America, with its phobia of modern, socialist reforms, is its own worst enemy. Hopefully that will change.

                            But the case I'm making is that:

                            - EASA requires twins (along with other redundancies) for HEMS operations. That service is widespead.
                            - Helicopter manufacturers have developed successful aircraft in response to this.
                            - There is no economic barrier to meeting these requirements given either public providers, publically-subsidized private providers or astronomically expensive private providers.
                            - The average price range for HEMS flights in the US is $15000-$25000.
                            - Only in areas where no regulatory-compliant HEMS provider is possible, should exceptions be made.

                            Comment


                            • #44
                              Originally posted by elaw View Post
                              I also bet they don't count the cost of insurance, which I suspect is astronomical (semi-pun intended) for a medevac operator.
                              Operating CAT A helicopters, and thus reducing risk significantly, should actually lower their insurance rates.

                              Comment


                              • #45
                                Originally posted by ATLcrew View Post
                                I'm glad to hear you say that last part, Evan. It appears that experience and engineering advancements also suggest that single-turbine helicopters are also, as you so eloquently put it, "reasonably safe". So, here we are.
                                Experience and engineering advancements suggest that single-engine ops on airliners is reasonably safe. But ETOPS still requires two, and we don't certify single-engine airliners. Redundancy is the cornerstone of aviation safety. Gabriel is free to risk his own life in a single (and the lives of a few willing passengers) but when the economics begin to allow for redundancy in commercial operations, we have to require it. And we do, on many levels. That's where we are.

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X