# The good ole, Vanbulance.



## EMTIsee (Oct 28, 2014)

I will say it I hate the van ambulances.  The other day as I was covering a shift. For a neighboring town. Now this service only has vans. The ambulances are brand new, so not all bad. That day I was working in the back. You have the ability to work in the back all day, drive, or rotate. The reason is this is only a BLS service. Moving on that day I was in the back. after spending all day back there. I was glad to go back to the big box. How many of you have ever had; the enjoyment. Of running in a vanbulance?


----------



## LACoGurneyjockey (Oct 28, 2014)

I have run. In many a vanbulance. I found the cramped space. Didn't leave much room. For proper sentence structure.


----------



## Ewok Jerky (Oct 28, 2014)

EMTIsee said:


> the enjoyment. Of running in a vanbulance?



Does not compute.

No one likes vanbulances. Sprinters aren't too bad as far as room to work but certainly are just as uncomfortable as any other type 2.


----------



## DesertMedic66 (Oct 28, 2014)

I am fine working in the vans with no issues at all. 

All of our units are type IIs aside from our CCT unit. 

All of my time for medic internship is on a type II. My preceptor is a rather large guy and we can move around in the back with no issues.


----------



## TransportJockey (Oct 28, 2014)

Actually type 2 vans are my favorite type to run 911 in. I can reach most things while belted in and I know where my gear is and can reach it efficiently


----------



## Akulahawk (Oct 28, 2014)

I never did mind doing 911 or IFT work in the Type II vans. The only time I wasn't so happy with them was when I had to run a call or two with a transplant team. That got a bit cramped in the back. For CCT or those darned transplant team runs, I much preferred larger ambulances.


----------



## NomadicMedic (Oct 28, 2014)

I also. Did not mind working. In vans. I did many. ALS. In the cans while I was in. Yakima.


----------



## DesertMedic66 (Oct 28, 2014)

DEmedic said:


> I also. Did not mind working. In vans. I did many. ALS. In the cans while I was in. Yakima.


I see. What. You did. There


----------



## TransportJockey (Oct 28, 2014)

DesertEMT66 said:


> I see. What. You did. There


There's. Something. On. The wing.


----------



## LightItUp98 (Oct 28, 2014)

This reminds me of the kid from malcom in the middle...
I...*breath*...also...*breath*...had...*breath*...no problems...*breath*...with space...*breath*...while working...*breath*...in the type II's..............*breath*.....


----------



## medicsb (Oct 28, 2014)

I think part of the problem is most type IIs have horrible design.  There are designs for sprinters whereby you can access the patient from 3 sides (head and both arms).


----------



## EMTIsee (Oct 28, 2014)

DEmedic said:


> I also. Did not mind working. In vans. I did many. ALS. In the cans while I was in. Yakima.



When you say this actually as typed it sounds robotic.  The robo medic, Sounds like it would make a great movie!


----------



## Jim37F (Oct 28, 2014)

LightItUp98 said:


> This reminds me of the kid from malcom in the middle...
> I...*breath*...also...*breath*...had...*breath*...no problems...*breath*...with space...*breath*...while working...*breath*...in the type II's..............*breath*.....


I was actually picturing good ole Bill Shatner lol


----------



## Tigger (Oct 28, 2014)

I think I just had a stroke reading all of that.

We have a 4x4 Type II that is alright, I don't particularly like seeing the ground through the cab floor (rubber gaskets went bye bye) but aside from that it's ok. I'm tall enough that I can't even come close to standing any rig, no matter the type.


----------



## EMTIsee (Oct 28, 2014)

Tigger said:


> I think I just had a stroke reading all of that.
> 
> We have a 4x4 Type II that is alright, I don't particularly like seeing the ground through the cab floor (rubber gaskets went bye bye) but aside from that it's ok. I'm tall enough that I can't even come close to standing any rig, no matter the type.


At least hearses and station wagons aren't still in use.


----------



## Angel (Oct 28, 2014)

I prefer vans and sprinters to boxes most of the time. Mostly because I hate driving them. But space wise, in the sprinter hasn't been an issue YET. But having a CPR seat is nice. And for pts who need IVs in their R arm but that's about it.


----------



## Tigger (Oct 29, 2014)

EMTIsee said:


> At least hearses and station wagons aren't still in use.


I've taken patients out in an SUV and little 6x6s, yea that's not that fun. Well the calls are but getting stuffed in is not.


----------



## usalsfyre (Oct 29, 2014)

If you ***** about Type IIs, don't tell me you want to be a flight medic.


----------



## TransportJockey (Oct 29, 2014)

usalsfyre said:


> If you ***** about Type IIs, don't tell me you want to be a flight medic.


You mean an Astar doesn't have the same kind of room some of these ground monstrosities does? Damn


----------



## usalsfyre (Oct 29, 2014)

TransportJockey said:


> You mean an Astar doesn't have the same kind of room some of these ground monstrosities does? Damn


Not exactly....


----------



## TransportJockey (Oct 29, 2014)

usalsfyre said:


> Not exactly....


Lol i hope uou know that coming from me at least that that answer was dripping in sarcasm


----------



## usalsfyre (Oct 29, 2014)

TransportJockey said:


> Lol i hope uou know that coming from me at least that that answer was dripping in sarcasm


Yeah I got that lol. Now the PC-12s your dealing with are much better, except for the darn load height.


----------



## TransportJockey (Oct 29, 2014)

usalsfyre said:


> Yeah I got that lol. Now the PC-12s your dealing with are much better, except for the darn load height.


Lol pc12? I wish. The air side if my company flies king air 90s at the other two bases and 421 Cessnas at my base. I love the PIC12s though


----------



## usalsfyre (Oct 29, 2014)

TransportJockey said:


> Lol pc12? I wish. The air side if my company flies king air 90s at the other two bases and 421 Cessnas at my base. I love the PIC12s though


For some reason I was thinking of Native, who I think? has the PC12s. The King Airs are worse on load height, and the 1980s called, they want their 421s back.


----------



## TransportJockey (Oct 29, 2014)

usalsfyre said:


> For some reason I was thinking of Native, who I think? has the PC12s. The King Airs are worse on load height, and the 1980s called, they want their 421s back.


Yep Native and Tristate both fly PC 12s I believe. And our 422s are going away for a king air by the end of the year thankfully lol. There's a reason I do 911 for them lol


----------



## Aprz (Oct 30, 2014)

When I first started working as an EMT, I used type II ambulances. I didn't like driving type III ambulances. Then I got hired at another company and worked on type III CCT ambulances. I've been working there for over 2 1/2 years, and I am doing my internship in type III ALS ambulances. I've worked in a type II ambulance a couple of times here and there (when we didn't have a nurse or I worked on a BLS unit), and I totally prefer type III ambulances now!


----------



## Akulahawk (Oct 30, 2014)

I don't know how CALSTAR managed to squeeze 2 patients, 2 nurses, and a pilot into their BO-105's... With the possible exception of one base, I don't think they use the 105's for any serious work any more.


----------



## exodus (Oct 30, 2014)

I don't know how CHP does it.  Yes, that is a transport chopper as well.

http://3.bp.blogspot.com/_j7LgYEn9efs/Sl60T_kj5eI/AAAAAAAAAJg/mwJ4xUM9YNo/s1600-h/IMG_4649.JPG


----------



## DesertMedic66 (Oct 30, 2014)

exodus said:


> I don't know how CHP does it.  Yes, that is a transport chopper as well.
> 
> http://3.bp.blogspot.com/_j7LgYEn9efs/Sl60T_kj5eI/AAAAAAAAAJg/mwJ4xUM9YNo/s1600-h/IMG_4649.JPG


Mercy and reach have some airships about that size also


----------



## Carlos Danger (Oct 30, 2014)

Akulahawk said:


> I don't know how CALSTAR managed to squeeze 2 patients, 2 nurses, and a pilot into their BO-105's... With the possible exception of one base, I don't think they use the 105's for any serious work any more.



The BO105 is actually a great helicopter. I worked in them for about 6 years. They are small (and slow), but I'll take a BO over an A-star or a 206 any day.


----------



## TransportJockey (Oct 30, 2014)

DesertEMT66 said:


> Mercy and reach have some airships about that size also


Looks like an Astar, pretty common HEMS bird


----------



## Akulahawk (Oct 30, 2014)

Remi said:


> The BO105 is actually a great helicopter. I worked in them for about 6 years. They are small (and slow), but I'll take a BO over an A-star or a 206 any day.


Didn't say that the BO wasn't a great helicopter. Just small...


----------



## Akulahawk (Oct 30, 2014)

TransportJockey said:


> Looks like an Astar, pretty common HEMS bird


That's because it is. The CHP helos are (IIRC) classified as "Rescue" helicopters and not an "Air Ambulance" because of the number of providers onboard. There's only one Officer/Paramedic. The other Officer is the pilot.


----------



## Akulahawk (Oct 30, 2014)

DesertEMT66 said:


> Mercy and reach have some airships about that size also


Around Sacramento, I usually hear (or occasionally see) REACH flying an Agusta 109 or a Jet Ranger with 4 main rotor blades. That makes for a very distinctive sound. They apparently also use EC-135's now, but I haven't seen those around here. Sacramento City PD's "Air One" is a Jet Ranger with just 2 main rotor blades. The Sheriff's Department uses EC-120's. Those also have a distinctive sound. 

I've heard Sac Metro Fire's "Copter 1" at times, but that ship usually doesn't take patients and it's a classic UH-1...


----------



## Akulahawk (Oct 30, 2014)

Oh, and to get us back on topic, the one kind of ambulance I never wanted (and never have) to work in is those little one made from a GMC Safari mini-van.


----------



## Carlos Danger (Oct 30, 2014)

Akulahawk said:


> Didn't say that the BO wasn't a great helicopter



I know. I was just sayin'.




Akulahawk said:


> Around Sacramento, I usually hear (or occasionally see) REACH flying an Agusta 109 or *a Jet Ranger with 4 main rotor blades.* That makes for a very distinctive sound.



That's a 407.....the 206 only had 2 blades.


----------



## EpiEMS (Oct 30, 2014)

Akulahawk said:


> Oh, and to get us back on topic, the one kind of ambulance I never wanted (and never have) to work in is those little one made from a GMC Safari mini-van.



I'd like to try working in one of these...if only because I'd like to be able to try running EMS in Israel. (And, maybe, just maybe, it'll have better handling than a Type III).


----------



## gotbeerz001 (Oct 30, 2014)

LightItUp98 said:


> This reminds me of the kid from malcom in the middle...
> I...*breath*...also...*breath*...had...*breath*...no problems...*breath*...with space...*breath*...while working...*breath*...in the type II's..............*breath*.....


I was just about to say that as I read it, the OP sounded out of breath... the Malcolm reference is spot on, though!


----------



## Tigger (Oct 31, 2014)

exodus said:


> I don't know how CHP does it.  Yes, that is a transport chopper as well.
> 
> http://3.bp.blogspot.com/_j7LgYEn9efs/Sl60T_kj5eI/AAAAAAAAAJg/mwJ4xUM9YNo/s1600-h/IMG_4649.JPG



The A-Star is one of the most popular airmedical helicopters in the world.


----------



## Akulahawk (Oct 31, 2014)

Remi said:


> I know. I was just sayin'.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Unless it's a 222, I never did bother with Bell Helicopter model numbers... just their commonly used names.


----------



## Akulahawk (Oct 31, 2014)

EpiEMS said:


> I'd like to try working in one of these...if only because I'd like to be able to try running EMS in Israel. (And, maybe, just maybe, it'll have better handling than a Type III).



That van is still "full size" but what I'm referring to is an ambulance built off of one of these:


----------



## Carlos Danger (Nov 1, 2014)

Akulahawk said:


> Unless it's a 222, I never did bother with Bell Helicopter model numbers... just their commonly used names.



True, but the triple deuce / 230 is a while other airframe.


----------



## NightShiftMedic (Nov 1, 2014)

I run CCT and emergency service out of a vanbulance now until I finish with this remote rotation.  I normally don't find it that bad, except that the backboards supplied by this company are too large to fit in the space provided so that have to permanently reside on the bench seat until it's needed.  It's a pain in the butt on a 2 hr transport.


----------



## EpiEMS (Nov 2, 2014)

Akulahawk said:


> That van is still "full size" but what I'm referring to is an ambulance built off of one of these:



Ooh. Wow. That looks pretty rough. Probably better than a helicopter, though?


----------



## TimRaven (Nov 5, 2014)

Ambulances in Asia are generally much smaller than here in US. Not sure how could they fit all equipments in.


----------



## Tigger (Nov 6, 2014)

American ambulances are generally farrrr overstocked. I'd be ok with carrying about half the quantity of most of our stuff.


----------



## Jim37F (Nov 9, 2014)

With all this talk of air ambulances,  I have a question,  what ever happened to NOTAR (No Tail Rotor) helicopters? Helicopters that use directed thrust as opposed to a vulnerable spinning blade. It seems to me that for HEMS where they could be landing just about anywhere (such as a highway with power lines or trees nearby) it would make more sense to not have a blade that could get caught up one of those (or a hapless medic).   I remember ages ago I saw a piece on them, I think the specific one I'm remembering was a version of the MD500.


----------



## Carlos Danger (Nov 9, 2014)

Jim37F said:


> With all this talk of air ambulances,  I have a question,  what ever happened to NOTAR (No Tail Rotor) helicopters? Helicopters that use directed thrust as opposed to a vulnerable spinning blade. It seems to me that for HEMS where they could be landing just about anywhere (such as a highway with power lines or trees nearby) it would make more sense to not have a blade that could get caught up one of those (or a hapless medic).   I remember ages ago I saw a piece on them, I think the specific one I'm remembering was a version of the MD500.



I can't explain the mechanics of it, but I think the enclosed tail rotor that Eurocopter now uses on many of their models (EC120, EC135, EC145, AS365) is a more efficient design and requires less maintenance than what the MD Explorer uses.


----------



## Tigger (Nov 9, 2014)

Remi said:


> I can't explain the mechanics of it, but I think the enclosed tail rotor that Eurocopter now uses on many of their models (EC120, EC135, EC145, AS365) is a more efficient design and requires less maintenance than what the MD Explorer uses.


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fenestron


----------



## usalsfyre (Nov 9, 2014)

Fenestrons and NOTAR tend to provide less thrust than a conventional tail rotor, which makes them in reality a poor choice for EMS. It's better to assign someone to keep people out of the tail rotor


----------



## Kevinf (Nov 10, 2014)

usalsfyre said:


> Fenestrons and NOTAR tend to provide less thrust than a conventional tail rotor, which makes them in reality a poor choice for EMS. It's better to assign someone to keep people out of the tail rotor



Per wikipedia on ducted blades: "A computational simulation has suggested that maximum achievable thrust is twice as high, and that at identical power, thrust was slightly greater, than for a conventional rotor of the same diameter."

And even if wikipedia is incorrect on that, I'd say why is this bad for EMS? If you had said that the reduced thrust was bad for an attack chopper, I'd have agreed. In EMS where there are going to be numerous people and objects potentially near the blades a protected rotor seems a wise choice regardless of any performance delta.


----------



## Tigger (Nov 10, 2014)

Kevinf said:


> Per wikipedia on ducted blades: "A computational simulation has suggested that maximum achievable thrust is twice as high, and that at identical power, thrust was slightly greater, than for a conventional rotor of the same diameter."
> 
> And even if wikipedia is incorrect on that, I'd say why is this bad for EMS? If you had said that the reduced thrust was bad for an attack chopper, I'd have agreed. In EMS where there are going to be numerous people and objects potentially near the blades a protected rotor seems a wise choice regardless of any performance delta.


People are not routinely killed by the tail rotor. Crews are routinely killed by helicopters operating at the edge of their performance envelopes in close confines.


----------



## Akulahawk (Nov 11, 2014)

Something else to remember is that any time you have a ducted fan, you could have a pretty good suction on one side... While I doubt people would easily get sucked in, smaller items could get sucked right on in and then you have a potential FOD problem. The Fenestron fan pretty much has to be low to the ground as their size/weight would essentially dictate that they be placed right at the end of the boom. A conventional tail rotor can be placed much higher off the ground and this can help limit the potential for someone to inadvertently come into contact with it.

It's probably cheaper to just have someone watch the tail rotor...


----------



## Kevinf (Nov 11, 2014)

Tigger said:


> People are not routinely killed by the tail rotor. Crews are routinely killed by helicopters operating at the edge of their performance envelopes in close confines.



Here comes an internet argument...

Same logic applies: according to that page quote_, YOUR LINK_, ducted fans have better performance than a similar open design. And not to go all meme quoting, but why not have the ducted fan that increases performance/safety AND have someone watch the tail end anyway?

I posted because I wanted to do the due diligence on a topic that was new to me before posting. I found out that one poster seemed to be incorrect regarding the performance of a protected rotor vs open rotor _per wikipedia (your link)_. Your reply to my post (notar/fenestron designs are listed as having BETTER performance) was that lack of performance is what kills crews...

So that's two marks _in favor_ of the notar/fenestron isn't it? Your own link tiger actually SAYS that they are considered better for RESCUE operations!

That's why I posted... just because you have a protected rotor doesn't mean you can't have a spotter too. And the protected rotor design is listed as having both a performance and safety advantage. The links posted seem to contradict the stated logic.


----------



## Tigger (Nov 11, 2014)

Thanks for the education...


----------



## Kevinf (Nov 11, 2014)

It was your link, thank you


----------



## usalsfyre (Nov 12, 2014)

Kevinf said:


> Here comes an internet argument...
> 
> Same logic applies: according to that page quote_, YOUR LINK_, ducted fans have better performance than a similar open design. And not to go all meme quoting, but why not have the ducted fan that increases performance/safety AND have someone watch the tail end anyway?
> 
> ...


I'd suggest you go ask a high time helicopter pilot which they prefer. I haven't found one yet that feels Fenestron's are as effective as a conventional t/r. It's the difference between Wikipedia and practical application.


----------



## vcuemt (Nov 12, 2014)

usalsfyre said:


> I'd suggest you go ask a high time helicopter pilot which they prefer. I haven't found one yet that feels Fenestron's are as effective as a conventional t/r. It's the difference between Wikipedia and practical application.


The difference between statistical and anecdotal evidence.

Ex.: A lot of medical providers would take exception to the new approach to backboarding.

Only one of the two options (evidentiary vs. anecdotal) is accepted as a valid argument.


----------



## Kevinf (Nov 12, 2014)

The tail rotor discussion is largely academic. I just felt compelled to point out that the posted information was in direct contradiction to the linked information.


----------



## cruiseforever (Nov 15, 2014)

Went from a Travelall to a Ford type II.  It was heaven.  That was back in the 70's.


----------



## Ruamkatanyu (Nov 18, 2014)

Akulahawk said:


> That van is still "full size" but what I'm referring to is an ambulance built off of one of these:


So something like this and yes both of those vehicles are Ambulances


----------



## Akulahawk (Nov 19, 2014)

Ruamkatanyu said:


> View attachment 1611
> 
> So something like this and yes both of those vehicles are Ambulances


Those would certainly fit my description of a cozy little ambulance!


----------



## DesertMedic66 (Dec 24, 2014)

I know this thread is a little old, and I know it's not the main topic of it, however enclosed rotors on helicopters were mentioned several times. In my area we are seeing more and more of the enclosed rotors. Even the picture Mercy Air used for their calender is of one.


----------



## Tigger (Dec 24, 2014)

The EC135 appears to have become a very popular aircraft in areas where high altitudes and densities are not as much of a factor. They're sweet looking aircraft too...


----------



## TransportJockey (Dec 24, 2014)

I love the 135s... shame I'll never see them where I work lol. But I like the A109 and 119s too


----------



## EpiEMS (Dec 24, 2014)

Tigger said:


> The EC135 appears to have become a very popular aircraft in areas where high altitudes and densities are not as much of a factor. They're sweet looking aircraft too...



National Guard (on a national basis) will be getting EC-145-based UH-72 ("Lakotas") for SAR, medivac, light utility, etc. (EC-135 and EC-145 are pretty similar).


----------



## Tigger (Dec 24, 2014)

EpiEMS said:


> National Guard (on a national basis) will be getting EC-145-based UH-72 ("Lakotas") for SAR, medivac, light utility, etc. (EC-135 and EC-145 are pretty similar).


I've seen a few out here in Colorado. The EC145 doesn't have the shrouded tail rotor. Hears to hoping that hoist capable military aircraft make a return to our area on a more consistent basis. We had a hoist equipped Blackhawk out a few weeks ago for a semi-wilderness call. Twas awesome.


----------



## Jon (Dec 25, 2014)

Tigger said:


> I've seen a few out here in Colorado. The EC145 doesn't have the shrouded tail rotor. Hears to hoping that hoist capable military aircraft make a return to our area on a more consistent basis. We had a hoist equipped Blackhawk out a few weeks ago for a semi-wilderness call. Twas awesome.



Isn't the EC145 just the 21st century BK117?


----------



## TransportJockey (Dec 25, 2014)

Jon said:


> Isn't the EC145 just the 21st century BK117?


Yep. In fact in some parts of the world, it's sold as the bk117


----------



## Carlos Danger (Dec 25, 2014)

Jon said:


> Isn't the EC145 just the 21st century BK117?



You could say that, but the EC is a completely different airframe than the BK.

Like a 2015 F-150 vs. a 1990 F-150.


----------



## Jon (Dec 25, 2014)

Remi said:


> You could say that, but the EC is a completely different airframe than the BK.
> 
> Like a 2015 F-150 vs. a 1990 F-150.


So you mean it's got more plastic, less metal, costs more to fix, and will only run for half the overall time?


----------



## Carlos Danger (Dec 25, 2014)

Jon said:


> So you mean it's got more plastic, less metal, costs more to fix, and will only run for half the overall time?



Pretty much


----------



## usalsfyre (Dec 27, 2014)

EpiEMS said:


> National Guard (on a national basis) will be getting EC-145-based UH-72 ("Lakotas") for SAR, medivac, light utility, etc. (EC-135 and EC-145 are pretty similar).


The 145 is just an update of the BK-117 (to the point the type certificate still list it as a variant of the 117)


----------

