Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Great North Air Ambulance trials paramedic jet suit

bbc.co.uk

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

61–70 of 89 posts

Re: Great North Air Ambulance trials paramedic jet suit

#61

Post by inglor_cz »

MaxBarraclough wrote: post #33
inglor_cz wrote: post #27

Earlier quoted context omitted.

A friend of mine has been an emergency doctor since 1990. A helicopter crashed with him on board once, killing the patient and causing him injuries that still can be seen after twenty years. His comment: "We are ready to take risks. That is part of our work, just like cops' or soldiers'. Some missions are extra risky - industrial accidents or anything involved drugged or drunk people. We still take that risk." IDK wh…

Looks like you're right, nowhere near as safe as I'd imagined. [0][1] I'm not sure if those figures are true globally or just for the US. [0] https://www.flyingmag.com/aircraft/helicopters/air-ambulance... [1] https://www.wsj.com/articles/SB123370317612745375

Probably just US, it would be hard to compile such data globally.

I dropped my friend a line and he answered back with a detailed description of his helo accident. It was one helluva freakish story.

They loaded an older lady in a hilly, wooded area not quite close to Ostrava (the largest city in the region, my birthplace). She had symptoms of a serious stroke, it was 1998, no one really expected her to live long, but not that short either.

A few minutes into the flight something (a nut?) exploded in the rotor and they went down like a stone. Very, very hard crash, still in a hilly, wooded area, but close to a big water reservoir, an artificial lake.

The lady died on impact. All other people on board survived with serious injuries, but they were saved by an unbelievable coincidence. A mine rescue team from Ostrava had a regular training on the lake and the helicopter crashed in their sight, less than a kilometer away. So they were there in like 3 minutes, dragged them to safety and put the burning wreck out.

If this was a movie, it would look totally unrealistic. But it happened.

Three months of rehabilitation and friend's lower back is still bad. He cannot stand completely upright, tilts slightly to a side.

Re: Great North Air Ambulance trials paramedic jet suit

#62

Post by MaxBarraclough »

inglor_cz wrote: post #61
MaxBarraclough wrote: post #33

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Looks like you're right, nowhere near as safe as I'd imagined. [0][1] I'm not sure if those figures are true globally or just for the US. [0] https://www.flyingmag.com/aircraft/helicopters/air-ambulance... [1] https://www.wsj.com/articles/SB123370317612745375

Probably just US, it would be hard to compile such data globally. I dropped my friend a line and he answered back with a detailed description of his helo accident. It was one helluva freakish story. They loaded an older lady in a hilly, wooded area not quite close to Ostrava (the largest city in the region, my birthplace). She had symptoms of a serious stroke, it was 1998, no one really expected her to live long, but…

So they instantly lost the main rotor? Same thing happens in mast bumping.

Here's the best explanation I know of: https://youtu.be/jDg1G2y8ZX4?t=293

(As far as I can tell no-one has made an animation of what happens.)

Re: Great North Air Ambulance trials paramedic jet suit

#63

Post by Neil44 »

NoOneNew wrote: post #50
itsoktocry wrote: post #30

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Helicopters can reach people just fine in a reasonable time Try to imagine a world where helicopters work in some rescue situations, but not so well in others.

Rain? High winds? I doubt a 250 pound dude in a jetpack is going to fair any better than 15,000 pound copter. Tight areas... maybe. But if the tree canopy is too tight, I don't see how a dude with a jetpack is truly going to navigate that efficiently. They'll just find a near by clearing to land and hoof over... which, the same can be said of someone in a copter. Though, the one from the copter can ruck 70+ pounds of…

Chopper needs a very large clear not sloping area to land in, jet man not so.

Re: Great North Air Ambulance trials paramedic jet suit

#64

Post by Retric »

Neil44 wrote: post #63
NoOneNew wrote: post #50

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Rain? High winds? I doubt a 250 pound dude in a jetpack is going to fair any better than 15,000 pound copter. Tight areas... maybe. But if the tree canopy is too tight, I don't see how a dude with a jetpack is truly going to navigate that efficiently. They'll just find a near by clearing to land and hoof over... which, the same can be said of someone in a copter. Though, the one from the copter can ruck 70+ pounds of…

Chopper needs a very large clear not sloping area to land in, jet man not so.

15,000 lb is a large helicopter which can winch people down and up. It’s the single man sub 1,500 lb helicopters that would need to land.

Re: Great North Air Ambulance trials paramedic jet suit

#65

Post by hnbear »

NoOneNew wrote: post #34

So... how is this better than a rescue helicopter with a basket (like the US Coast Guard)? Helicopter in an EMT to go down with the basket, stabilize the victim, place victim in the basket, retract, fly away (yes, I know, there's more to it). With this setup up, fly in with super limited resources and stabilize the victim to wait for a helicopter for exfil? Super rapid response, maybe, but search/rescue is also prett…

Looks like the mountain equivalent of fast-response motorbike EMTs - https://www.jems.com/2018/02/19/motorcycle-response-units-in...

Even helicopters can take a while to get on station, and typically come from much further away.

While I agree this looks gimmicky, I wonder if they can station many more jetpacks (much cheaper than a helicopter) much closer (ie. every mountain rescue station has one) than a helicopter.

The survival likelihood for EMT callouts drops really quickly as time progresses, so getting there quickly for initial triage and stabilization is more important than getting complex equipment there. They could stabilize and then radio for either a 4x4 or helicopter, using resources appropriate to the situation.

The UK is tiny compared to the US, and 'mountain rescue' is very different compared to the US as well.

Re: Great North Air Ambulance trials paramedic jet suit

#66

Post by SideburnsOfDoom »

dogma1138 wrote: post #52
SideburnsOfDoom wrote: post #48

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I have no idea what that means, that's why I asked.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Six_degrees_of_freedom If not it isn't really flying. I don't know if it moves around with forces in 6DOF or not either.

Up to a max altitude of 7 meters (at best), sure, an Ekranoplan has got all the degrees of freedom that other aircraft have, Which as was pointed out here https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=24629545 , is not 6

Imho no, an Ekranoplan does not fly freely. Nothing to do with a bogus DOF count though

Re: Great North Air Ambulance trials paramedic jet suit

#67

Post by twic »

SideburnsOfDoom wrote: post #11
unwind wrote: post #7

Like other commenters, I agree that this is roughly equal parts awesome (because flying suits are awesome, and also because rapid response from medical professionals in the field is too), equal parts silly/gimmicky/unlikely. Also, why is the BBC feeling a need to put quotes around "fly" in the article? If a person is, like, lifting off from the ground, and moving through the air in a controlled fashion driven by jet…

> If a person is, like, lifting off from the ground, and moving through the air in a controlled fashion driven by jet engines, isn't that pretty exactly flying? It depends, are they reaching a height where the Wing-in-ground effect is negligible? If they have to stay below that, then no, not really flying. Unless you'd say that a hovercraft or ekranoplan also flies. Or they could just be staying low because it might…

Terminology nit: the effect is the ground effect; the vehicle might be a wing-in-ground-effect craft.

Re: Great North Air Ambulance trials paramedic jet suit

#68

Post by ChuckMcM »

treetoppin wrote: post #37

Pretty cool usage scenario, since everyone can imagine a flying hero coming in to save the day. That being said, this feels like a solution looking for a problem. I am sure there are specific areas of responsibility that would benefit from a rapidly deployable single medic carrying a small triage kit with no patient return capability, but they are probably few and far between (especially when you factor in the above…

It sort of depends a bit on cost and a bit on how one operates it doesn't it?

Operations costs on a rescue helicopter can be $1500 - $5000/hr based on publicly available data. What is more, large helicopters can do harm with their down wash. So if you can have a suit, or two, or three sitting in the closet on standby then the cost to respond quickly to one of these events can be much lower than the cost of calling in a helicopter.

Clearly the amount of gear you can carry to the scene is minimal, but you can get an able bodied first aid technician there faster than hiking in and faster than calling in a helicopter, loading up the tech, flying to the location, and lowering them to the ground. Not to mention the challenges of wind effects in wooded terrain where the helicopter pilot and the technician in the rescue basket are essentially in two different wind regimes.

Then there are the TCO costs, what does it cost to own a helicopter versus say 5 flying suits? If the helicopter is down for maintenance you're stuck, but if a suit is down you still have 4 suits ready to go right? That lowers your risk of not having the capability when you need it. How much? Hard to say without knowing the maintenance regimen of the suits but it seems likely the suits would be more resilience against 100% loss of capability.

Re: Great North Air Ambulance trials paramedic jet suit

#69

Post by throw0101a »

hnbear wrote: post #65
NoOneNew wrote: post #34

So... how is this better than a rescue helicopter with a basket (like the US Coast Guard)? Helicopter in an EMT to go down with the basket, stabilize the victim, place victim in the basket, retract, fly away (yes, I know, there's more to it). With this setup up, fly in with super limited resources and stabilize the victim to wait for a helicopter for exfil? Super rapid response, maybe, but search/rescue is also prett…

Looks like the mountain equivalent of fast-response motorbike EMTs - https://www.jems.com/2018/02/19/motorcycle-response-units-in... Even helicopters can take a while to get on station, and typically come from much further away. While I agree this looks gimmicky, I wonder if they can station many more jetpacks (much cheaper than a helicopter) much closer (ie. every mountain rescue station has one) than a helicopter.…

> Looks like the mountain equivalent of fast-response motorbike EMTs

For a more focused used of these, see motorcycle medics at races:

* https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ocHeJG5o8N0

* https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Hinds_(doctor)

Re: Great North Air Ambulance trials paramedic jet suit

#70

Post by treis »

elil17 wrote: post #47
treetoppin wrote: post #37

Pretty cool usage scenario, since everyone can imagine a flying hero coming in to save the day. That being said, this feels like a solution looking for a problem. I am sure there are specific areas of responsibility that would benefit from a rapidly deployable single medic carrying a small triage kit with no patient return capability, but they are probably few and far between (especially when you factor in the above…

I agree that a jet pack isn’t as useful as a helicopter, but they are way, way cheaper. Medical helicopters cost millions of dollars and require expensive fuel and highly trained pilots. Jetpacks cost $100-300k, use a fraction of the fuel, and can be flown with a sports pilot license (much easier to acquire and maintain).

>I agree that a jet pack isn’t as useful as a helicopter, but they are way, way cheaper. Medical helicopters cost millions of dollars and require expensive fuel and highly trained pilots. Jetpacks cost $100-300k, use a fraction of the fuel, and can be flown with a sports pilot license (much easier to acquire and maintain).

I'm not so sure I buy this. Maybe if you compare a jetpack with a helicopter capable of winching out the patient. But small 2 person helicopters are available new for the low 100s of thousands. I suspect they're more fuel efficient than a jet pack, but I don't have anything to back that up.

Post reply on HN