For help, advice and discussion about stuff not related to aviation. Play nice: no religion, no politics and no axe grinding please.
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
  • 10
#1588076
Interesting one in today's news, an air ambulance crew were told to move after landing at a building site in Leamington Spa on Sunday. Apparently a salesperson took exception to the unscheduled arrival and informed them that they were not to 'park' on the site.

Her employers, Persimmon Homes, later stated that they supported her stance and that it was to preserve health and safety, due to materials in the area they had chosen to land, which kind of begs the question as to who risk assesses an area for an emergency services landing.

Your thoughts.....?

http://metro.co.uk/2018/01/31/air-ambul ... e-7276426/
Canopus liked this
User avatar
By skydriller
FLYER Club Member  FLYER Club Member
#1588140
:shock: :roll:

Yes, Rotor down-wash may have possibly blown something around, but surely if you have legitimate concerns the right way to go about it is to liaise with the crew? I mean they have already landed, so berating them and saying "you cant land here" is a bit late regardless of the fact they are trying to save a life!! Get the crew to help assess if anything needed to be secured before taking off again? PR-101, what were they thinking...

But one has to wonder how trustworthy the news source is though and if the article is entirely accurate...:think:

Regards, SD..
Canopus liked this
#1588198
My thoughts are deeply uncharitable.

A helimed captain makes these decisions constantly and is trained and qualified to do so. Nobody should have any doubts whatsoever why they are there - one look at the helicopters and what's painted on the side makes that extremely clear.

Site H&S rules (as opposed to a bit of obvious common sense), trespass and the dignity of a saleswoman have no significance whatsoever when compared to the imperative of saving somebody's life.

Her employer should have apologised and given her a good solid meeting without tea and biscuits on the topic.

G
T67M, avtur3, Charles Hunt and 3 others liked this
#1588214
I can see why the salesperson was concerned. We no longer live in a world of common sense where a building site can be navigated with accepted risk. We now live in a world where if the heli crew had stepped on a nail or ended up with a splinter in their hand, there’d be injury claim lawyers **** to the site offering to sue the owners/managers of the site.
Trent772 liked this
User avatar
By skydriller
FLYER Club Member  FLYER Club Member
#1588269
However that second case is a little different and has come about because of "Temporary closure of the Hospital dedicated helipad" which has now become a permanent...Carpark... :roll:
User avatar
By skydriller
FLYER Club Member  FLYER Club Member
#1588281
Ashley wrote:Will they build a new helipad or are they making too much money from the car parking to replace it?


That was my thinking, and possibly what the residents that are complaining are thinking...
#1588387
Did a bit of digging about on these ambulance services. Their websites are very long on how to give them money, but not that much else, so I had a decko at the money. Their financial details lodged with the Charity Commission are interesting.

The Air Ambulance Service raised £16.3M and spent £15.8M, but £9.8M of that was on "income generation and governance" with only £5.9M on "charitable spending"

The Midland Air Ambulance raised £13M and spent £8.6M, with £3.05M of that on "income generation and governance" and only £5.59M on "charitable spending"

All figures rounded slightly.

The Air Ambulance Service has been criticised over salary levels.

Bill H
#1588400
And I'll bet that those salary based criticisms weren't of what they were paying the pilots and engineers.


My local Air Ambulance is Thames Valley, looks like 65% operational or reserves, 20% fundraising, 13% admin, 2% governance. Not quite so bad, but still only 2/3rds on charitable activity. That's of £6.6m, so about £4.3m on charitable activity.

Modern charities do spend a lot on fundraising anywhere, but my local air ambulance does seem to manage itself a lot better than yours. The "Air Ambulance Service" swallowed up the deeply dodgy "Childrens Air Ambulance" a few years ago, but it sounds as if they swallowed their financial practices as well...

Wikipedia on the Childrens Air Ambulance

Wikipedia on The Air Ambulance Service

G
#1588610
Bill Haddow wrote:Did a bit of digging about on these ambulance services. Their websites are very long on how to give them money, but not that much else, so I had a decko at the money. Their financial details lodged with the Charity Commission are interesting.

The Air Ambulance Service raised £16.3M and spent £15.8M, but £9.8M of that was on "income generation and governance" with only £5.9M on "charitable spending"

The Midland Air Ambulance raised £13M and spent £8.6M, with £3.05M of that on "income generation and governance" and only £5.59M on "charitable spending"

All figures rounded slightly.

The Air Ambulance Service has been criticised over salary levels.

Bill H


Bill: Criticised by whom? A driver, a walker, a hiker, a horse-rider, a fell-runner, a boater, a pilot or any myriad of other occupations/pastimes one day might possibly need the services of a helicopter flight to save their life.
I recall an occasion when the question of funding for Air Ambulances (and perhaps also the RNLI) was raised in perhaps the House of Commons...with one argument being that there should be central (Government) support...to which the response was "No, we don't want to waste half our income creating long-winded financial reports to some Quango", or words to that effect. I'm sure each Charity has to report financially to the CC, but in essence, I'm glad they took that stance.

BTW, both RNLI and the various air ambulance charities are well supported financially, and long may that continue.

Rob

p.s. What's a "decko"?
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
  • 10