# Feds fine Ore. Mercy Flights over personal pronoun



## MMiz (Aug 29, 2010)

Feds fine Ore. Mercy Flights over personal pronoun
MEDFORD, Ore. — A three-letter word has cost one of the nation's oldest air ambulance operators a $30,000 fine.

The word is "our" — a possessive personal pronoun meaning it belongs to us.

But the U.S. Department of Transportation says that was the wrong word for Mercy Flights of Oregon to use to describe a helicopter with a Federal Aviation Administration certificate owned by another company.

Read more!


----------



## Too Old To Work (Aug 29, 2010)

Dept. of Transportation. Another federal agency without a purpose.


----------



## jjesusfreak01 (Aug 29, 2010)

Are you kidding me. Is this a joke. They aren't allowed to call their helicopter "our helicopter". If they own the company that owns the helicopter, then its their helicopter. I concur with the old one here, the US Dept of Transportation is making themselves look like a useless overweight government organisation.


----------



## Too Old To Work (Aug 29, 2010)

jjesusfreak01 said:


> I concur with the old one here, the US Dept of Transportation is making themselves look like a useless overweight government organisation.



That's because it is a  useless overweight government organization. Like most of them.


----------



## Foxbat (Aug 29, 2010)

If if wasn't for that useless overweight US DOT, there would be no such things as EMT or paramedic in the US, just rescue squads with no training and no oversight.


----------



## Too Old To Work (Aug 29, 2010)

Foxbat said:


> If if wasn't for that useless overweight US DOT, there would be no such things as EMT or paramedic in the US, just rescue squads with no training and no oversight.



Or EMS in the US would have been placed under a medical organization and not one whose primary duties are defined thus, 

The mission of the Department of Transportation, a cabinet-level executive department of the United States government, is to develop and coordinate policies that will provide an efficient and economical national transportation system, with due regard for need, the environment, and the national defense. It is the primary agency in the federal government with the responsibility for shaping and administering policies and programs to protect and enhance the safety, adequacy, and efficiency of the transportation system and services. 

Much of what is wrong with EMS in this country can be directly attributed to it's inception as a system to respond to motor vehicle accidents. Much of the rest of the development of EMS happened despite, not because of the federal government. Much of the development of early ALS systems was based on military medics who came back from Vietnam and found that wounded soldiers in S.E. Asia received better car than their families did in the US. Much of the rest of it was the vision of people who saw beyond just teaching ambulance drivers first aid courses. People like James O. Page, Lou Jordan, R Cowley Adams, Peter Safar, Norman McSwain and others who put their professional reputations on the line to prove that "ambulance drivers" could do advanced skills such as start IVs, give cardiac medications, operate monitor/defibrillators, and even intubate. 

None of that came from the DOT, other than some money to start up basic EMT education way back when. 

Arguably, we'd have been better off if the DOT hadn't become involved in early EMS development.


----------



## Flight-LP (Aug 29, 2010)

jjesusfreak01 said:


> Are you kidding me. Is this a joke. They aren't allowed to call their helicopter "our helicopter". If they own the company that owns the helicopter, then its their helicopter. I concur with the old one here, the US Dept of Transportation is making themselves look like a useless overweight government organisation.



Mercy Flights doesn't own the helicopter though. It may seem trivial, but there are a few air medical providers out there that intentionally deceive clientele in their business development practices to overshadow potentially negative perceptions. While I do not believe this particular case to fall in that catagory, I applaud the Government for intervening into an industry needing much improvement. Dot your I's and cross your T's and you have nothing to worry about.


----------



## Too Old To Work (Aug 29, 2010)

Flight-LP said:


> Mercy Flights doesn't own the helicopter though. It may seem trivial, but there are a few air medical providers out there that intentionally deceive clientele in their business development practices to overshadow potentially negative perceptions. While I do not believe this particular case to fall in that catagory, I applaud the Government for intervening into an industry needing much improvement. Dot your I's and cross your T's and you have nothing to worry about.



How many services do own their own ships? The few I'm familiar with lease the ships and pilot services from companies that specialize in providing those. Even though the ship is painted in the service's colors and logos and are used exclusively by those services, they technically aren't owned by them. 

Similarly, if you look at the registration of one of our ambulances, you'll see it's owned by another entity entirely. No where on the ambulance is that parent agency identified. 

Maybe someone should call the FTC on us! 

Oh, and let us know how much you applaud the government for intervening when they decide to issue regulations specifying flight conditions, crew configuration, when you can take a trip and when you can reject it, limitations on scene flights, and so on. There are certainly problems with the HEMS industry, but this is not a major one requiring government action.


----------



## Flight-LP (Aug 29, 2010)

Too Old To Work said:


> How many services do own their own ships? The few I'm familiar with lease the ships and pilot services from companies that specialize in providing those. Even though the ship is painted in the service's colors and logos and are used exclusively by those services, they technically aren't owned by them.
> 
> Similarly, if you look at the registration of one of our ambulances, you'll see it's owned by another entity entirely. No where on the ambulance is that parent agency identified.
> 
> ...



Feel free to pick up the phone and start calling air services and ask them about the ownership of the aircraft they utilize.

In the interim, though, I'll tell you I welcome the proposed government interventions. Honestly, I'm tired of burying my friends. The funny part to your posting however is the fact that most of your printed examples are already in place and regulated.


----------



## Too Old To Work (Aug 29, 2010)

Flight-LP said:


> Feel free to pick up the phone and start calling air services and ask them about the ownership of the aircraft they utilize.



I don't have to, I have a friend who owns an air ambulance (fixed wing), and a couple who currently fly for them. 



> In the interim, though, I'll tell you I welcome the proposed government interventions. Honestly, I'm tired of burying my friends. The funny part to your posting however is the fact that most of your printed examples are already in place and regulated.



I've been following this for a few years, and again people in the industry tell me there isn't much in the way of regulation. I know them, I don't know you, so I'll go with what they tell me. 

What they tell me is that it's mostly a free for all. Some services are pressured to fly when they shouldn't because they are afraid that another service will fly and they'll lose the client. Others won't fly when they think the weather is bad and because they don't have competition in their area, they don't have to worry about it. 

People are dying needlessly in that part of the industry and the industry doesn't seem inclined to fix the problem. Currently the industry if fighting NTSB proposals for equipment standards. 

If the industry doesn't work together to improve safety, they are going to get the government forcing bad regulations on them. You may think it's an improvement now, but when you're out of work because your service shut down because it as too expensive to run the system, you might not be so happy.


----------



## ExpatMedic0 (Aug 29, 2010)

Maybe they could use the extra $30k from all the medics they laid off in the last couple years.


----------



## Flight-LP (Aug 29, 2010)

I'm not concerned about my employment, but I appreciate your concern for it.

While you are talking to some folks involved in the industry, I'm actually in it. I care not what you are hearing or who is telling it to you. With discussions of pressure to take flights and concerns about competition, I perceive you talking to some of the very people that are cutting corners and being a causitive factor of these aforementioned issues.

Regardless, I appreciate your second hand insight and interest in improving the air medical industry. So now that you have puffed out your chest with non-direct subjective knowledge, what are you doing to improve the industry as a whole? Are you lobbying against the providers who are blocking the promotion of a new culture in air medical utilization? Are you supporting legislation to improve technology, communication. and safety to allow the dedicated air medical crews to come home safely? What specifically are you doing other than spouting off assumptions based off of what a couple of your buddies have said?

Contrary to the belief of some, there are some professionals out there wanting and willing to improve the industry. Just because there are some greedy operators out there looking to turn a buck with the business vs. focusing on the practice and delivery of medicine, don't group everyone together in a singular assumption. It's views such as these that really can make EMS look like a complete ***. An opinion is fine, but coming in here firing off statements that you really know nothing about (a fact which you have validated in this thread) gets you nowhere.


----------



## Too Old To Work (Aug 29, 2010)

Flight-LP said:


> I'm not concerned about my employment, but I appreciate your concern for it.
> 
> While you are talking to some folks involved in the industry, I'm actually in it. I care not what you are hearing or who is telling it to you. With discussions of pressure to take flights and concerns about competition, I perceive you talking to some of the very people that are cutting corners and being a causitive factor of these aforementioned issues.
> 
> Regardless, I appreciate your second hand insight and interest in improving the air medical industry. So now that you have puffed out your chest with non-direct subjective knowledge, what are you doing to improve the industry as a whole? Are you lobbying against the providers who are blocking the promotion of a new culture in air medical utilization? Are you supporting legislation to improve technology, communication. and safety to allow the dedicated air medical crews to come home safely? What specifically are you doing other than spouting off assumptions based off of what a couple of your buddies have said?



You seem to be assuming facts not in evidence. Believe it or not, a lot of people who have never flown have a lot of interest in this subject. It certainly seems that the industry is not doing a whole lot to improve it's safety as a whole. Conversely, if it is, then what they are doing is not effective. 

The first thing I would do is start re-educating ground services when and when not to call. I'd also advise the air ambulance industry to stop giving "20 minutes" as an ETA when it's not true. Which would seem to be most of the time. 



> Contrary to the belief of some, there are some professionals out there wanting and willing to improve the industry. Just because there are some greedy operators out there looking to turn a buck with the business vs. focusing on the practice and delivery of medicine, don't group everyone together in a singular assumption. It's views such as these that really can make EMS look like a complete ***. An opinion is fine, but coming in here firing off statements that you really know nothing about (a fact which you have validated in this thread) gets you nowhere.



So, are you saying that only non profit entities should run HEMS? That's an interesting idea, although maybe not practical. Just because I'm not a glorified transfer medic like you, doesn't mean I don't know something about the industry. It does mean that I don't have a vested interest, other than hoping that none of my friends get killed while doing a stupid, needless flight. 

The biggest problem with HEMS is that there are too many services in some areas, many doing needless flights. 

Being in the industry attitudes such as yours are likely a big part of the problem.


----------



## SauceyEMT (Aug 30, 2010)

I know it's off topic, but what the heck. When my department needed a MedFlight bird for a critical priority 1 trauma patient, we were told the helicopter was not flying due to weather. The odd part was that (2) separate news helicopters were actively hovering over our scene taping for the evening news broadcast. Not to mention the MedFlight base is less than a 3 minute flight from the scene. Weird. 

Anyway, carry on.


----------



## reaper (Aug 30, 2010)

They have to look at the weather on scene, en route, at hospital and what may be moving in during all this. Just becsause the weather is good where you are, does not mean it is every where.


----------



## bstone (Aug 30, 2010)

Insanity doesn't quite cover this.


----------



## SauceyEMT (Aug 31, 2010)

reaper said:


> They have to look at the weather on scene, en route, at hospital and what may be moving in during all this. Just becsause the weather is good where you are, does not mean it is every where.



Obviously, but various other aircraft were flying in the area, for other than critical reasons. Just sayin'...


----------



## Flight-LP (Aug 31, 2010)

SauceyEMT said:


> Obviously, but various other aircraft were flying in the area, for other than critical reasons. Just sayin'...



Electronic News Gathering (ENG) pilots fly under a different set of regulations (14 CFR Part 91 vs. Part 135). In addition, it doesn't matter what or who is flying at point A, there is always the possibility of much different weather conditions at point B, even if it is only a couple of miles away.


----------



## Too Old To Work (Aug 31, 2010)

Flight-LP said:


> Electronic News Gathering (ENG) pilots fly under a different set of regulations (14 CFR Part 91 vs. Part 135). In addition, it doesn't matter what or who is flying at point A, there is always the possibility of much different weather conditions at point B, even if it is only a couple of miles away.



I see news/traffic helos flying in weather that medical helicopter don't, but that's generally during the day, not at night. Which makes me wonder how many of these crashes are at night? 

Also, if a news helicopter has to put down somewhere because of bad weather, it's a much smaller deal than if a medevac helicopter has to land somewhere with a patient on board.


----------

