The Flying Paramedic

About 10 minutes max; not great for searching for people, but if you have a decent idea of where the casualty is this will be a quick way of getting to them without requiring a helicopter.
 
How much (kilograms or pounds) of medical equipment can he carry?
How many kilometres can he ravel on one tank of propellant?
How high can he climb on one tank of propellant?
 
While I was watching the item on the evening news, I envisage it being deployed from a ground transport, then deploying to give immediate medical assistance, while waiting for mountain rescue to get to them. Plus it could mean that if it were necessary to hoist the casualty onto a helicopter there would be a trained person to assist the person lowered on the hoist.
 
www.theguardian.com

Jet suit paramedic takes Lake District test flight

Inventor Richard Browning puts potentially life-saving suit through its paces in ‘groundbreaking exercise’
www.theguardian.com www.theguardian.com

Rather more detail in the Guardian article. The proposal seems to be to deploy the jet suit from a rapid response vehicle, which in UK usage is pretty much a police traffic car with a different colour scheme and medical gear rather than police equipment, usually driven by a senior paramedic. GNAAS runs two air ambulances, east-side at Teeside airport, west-side somewhere over by the M6, IIRC and if the west side one is busy it'll take the east-side one a significant amount of time to redeploy, especially if it's up in Northumberland when the call comes. So putting someone in the Lakes and able to respond quickly and stabilise a patient until the helicopter arrives makes a lot of sense.
 
As an ex paramedic myself, the first priority is to fail to become the next casualty and this seems to almost guarantee that. If you have anything like this you will need to be deployed by helicopter and supported by that aircraft. Pointless getting to the casualty if you then cannot evacuate that casualty without a helicopter. The rotary wing taxi is there already, use the ruddy thing and save your money from this wild goose chase. Honestly, have we got so much money we want to throw away MORE?
 
On the positive side, I noticed that to my knowledge, this is the first Jetpack to put an exoskeleton b/w the power units and the human. What greatly helps any average person behind the controls.
 
TomcatViP said:
You need reliability. More than what you get with a stunt. Otherwise the first thing needing attention once the helicopter arrives... Will be the paramedic.
Click to expand...

They've been testing this thing for several years and they're up to 100+ flights without serious incident, so I don't think you can dismiss it as a stunt. I'm not a particular fan of the configuration, but it seems to be demonstrating it can reliably fly.
 
Foo Fighter said:
If you have anything like this you will need to be deployed by helicopter and supported by that aircraft. Pointless getting to the casualty if you then cannot evacuate that casualty without a helicopter. The rotary wing taxi is there already, use the ruddy thing and save your money from this wild goose chase.
Click to expand...

Their plan is for deployment by rapid response vehicle, which seems entirely possible. And every existing ambulance service rapid response vehicle in the country is already incapable of evacuating a casualty. The whole point of an RRV is to get a senior paramedic on site and stabilising the casualty without waiting for a full-up ambulance capable of evacuating them to get there.

Similarly this is for the times the air ambulance isn't already there. If the Teesside-based helo launches from base it's 70+ miles from parts of the Lakes, call it 30 minutes flying time. If it's up in the Borders it could be over 100 miles, call it 45 minutes to get on site. (And on site doesn't mean able to deploy their paramedic and doctor, there's plenty of times they end up dropping them at a distance because there's nowhere flat enough on site). If they're getting dozens of patients a month in the Lakes then there are going to be a lot of occasions when the Cumbria-based helicopter isn't available because it's already on a call-out, and when the Teesside-based helicopter is 30 minutes or more away.
 
I understand that but, if you have no aviation to get you within striking distance you are talking of much more time than that. The range will be dire at best. How much kit can this medic carry on that setup? they will need spinal boards and fluids for a start, a LOT of bulk. Having been in this situation, it's tough but, you CANNOT save them all and I for one have nightmares about those I could not get out of the situation. This piece of kit is the Emperors new clothes at very best and I'm very much afraid it will do nothing but raise the hopes of people with NONE. Take a fractured femur which is a realistic casualty. You need to stabilise the fracture, best done with MAST (Military Anti Shock Trousers), fluids, preferably some plasma and Hartmans or Dextrose Saline with wound dressing etc AND a spinal board to get the casualty secure. Then you will be waiting for a helicopter for the most part, but, you need to stabilise that fracture and stop the blood loss WITHIN thirty minutes or you are taking a body back down. You may be doing that even if you have got everything done in time, folk can react differently to treatment, there may be secondary injuries you will not see out on the hills and some people who should make it, just stop. Get yourself something like the Bell 47G which is cheaper and more easily run on a budget, do what they did in Korea you might actually save more people. Stop wasting time and money on these pie in the sky fantasy's because they are publicity stunts, full stop.

I cannot bear the smell of roast pork/roasting pork. I throw up as soon as I get a whiff. I would love to think that there is a tech solution but there is not. The army system of carrying your OWN medical kit with you when you go on ops is something the hill walking and climbing community MUST start to do if they are to save themselves and their fellows on the hills and mountains but that will happen, right?

This is the hardest thread I have addressed anywhere, on ANY forum and I've been on a few. I'm sorry if I have offended anyone but I'm off for some liquid amber or I'll not sleep for days.
 
I hope you can find peace with those memories and find recomfort with those you saved. There is much too often so few that we can do.
Cheer.
 
This is a stunt. But then the earliest helicopters were stunts as well.

Something that might eventually work: instead of a jetpack/flying suit, think of a flying stretcher, a cross between a simple pod you can lay someone out in and a quadcopter, perhaps with small turbofans rather than props at the corners. Put a paramedic in it at the base and fly up, or carry it under a helicopter and fly down. The paramedic does not fly it; it flies itself based on GPS and whatnot. Lands near patient, paramedic gets out, tend to patient, puts patient into pod, it flies the patient to safety and then flies back for the paramedic. Ridiculous? Now, sure. Ten years from now? Maybe. Twenty years from now? Maybe not.
 
Thanks to Tomcat and Yasotay. ^, It does not sound ridiculous to me tbh but the load required might require two trips for patient treatment alone depending on the injuries and with multiple casualties, many trips. The small helicopter would be more commodious but there is no problem if THAT is a drone so size would be easier to deal with ie no pilot.
 
As another ex-paramedic i watched this and can only think that it's a good way for GNAAS to raise awareness, and funds.

I can kind of see the idea but can't help thinking how much time you are going to waste strapping it on and then getting the engines started up and balanced etc, plus you really are not going to be carrying much!

I remember a few years ago an air ambulance team, i think rutland / Leicester were going to fit a winch / hoist and winch to scenes, that never happened.

Sadly what you need in the hills is a SAR chopper, which are now provided by bristows via coast guard but far too spread out to get to these / any places quickly.

I've been on the receiving end of the ambulance politics, refusing to call in the RAF because it would be embarrassing, whilst trying to save some poor patient.

It's not the worst idea in the world, but not mature enough yet, or that well thought out, strikes me as a couple of gungho macho Air Ambulance paramedics with too much time on their hands and over inflated ego's.

But hey, i'm usually wrong
 
This jet pack might be impractical for the longer distances in the Lake District ... but what about casualties halfway up a skyscraper?
The wounded are a long way from the ground floor or a roof-top heli-pad. Theoretically, a jet-pack could land on a balcony halfway up the building.
Jet-pack is even more valuable when fires or electrical failures disable elevators.
Also consider how many millions more people live in cities compared with the Lake District.
 
Consider also the hazard of storing 2 or 3 gallons of jet fuel per occupants of the building at each floor...
 
Last edited:
Without wishing to drift too far off-topic, there is a far more realistic solution - the UK (even in the times of Covid, a very wealthy country) should just get its priorities straight and have a properly funded air ambulance capability.

I also take the point entirely that some who go into the 'wilds' should be more prepared.
 
Consider that we already used motorbike-riding paramedics in London for certain, and possibly some of the other larger cities. There's a demonstrated role for paramedics with a small amount of gear getting there faster. Full kit and a spinal board is nice. Defib, a couple of collars and inflatable splints and a selection of drugs is better than nothing.

For the non-Brits who may be unaware, the regional air ambulance operations are charities with professional pilots but manned by volunteer paramedics and trauma doctors and supported by local fundraising. Unlike some countries patients don't pay anything for ambulance services, whether conventional or air ambulance. Sticking an extra helicopter in the Lakes would be ideal, but may well not fit within sustainable finances.
 
I quite like the idea of using descenders for casualties in high rises myself but not sure you would get anyone to agree.........
 
DWG said:
Consider that we already used motorbike-riding paramedics in London for certain, and possibly some of the other larger cities. There's a demonstrated role for paramedics with a small amount of gear getting there faster. Full kit and a spinal board is nice. Defib, a couple of collars and inflatable splints and a selection of drugs is better than nothing.

For the non-Brits who may be unaware, the regional air ambulance operations are charities with professional pilots but manned by volunteer paramedics and trauma doctors and supported by local fundraising. Unlike some countries patients don't pay anything for ambulance services, whether conventional or air ambulance. Sticking an extra helicopter in the Lakes would be ideal, but may well not fit within sustainable finances.
Click to expand...

In my old patch the paramedics were seconded onto the chopper, supposed to be for a short period to up skill then go back on the road, that never happened, they all stayed for as long as the could. Some Drs are paid, some volunteer, and some teams in some areas are pure charity, it's all very confusing.

Daft thought, could you pop a robinson r22 in the lakes for the summer, pilot and paramedic:

Get to scene, abseil out with just enough kit to stabilise and then wait for mountain rescue / proper helicopter, thats not going to cost the earth, not sure how much the r22 can carry, i guess R44 would be better, nothing turbine powered as going to get too costly.
 
Robinson does offer a turbine-powered version of their R44 helicopter, though that is primarily aimed at countries that no longer have a ready supply of 100 octane gasoline (think Canadian high arctic).
 
Basically a modern version/type of Bell 47. More of them in more locations and you could well deal with the majority of single casualty situations. Either way, the curerent situation cannot go on forever. Proper funding and siting of assets is a must have scenario.
 
bob225 said:
Daft thought, could you pop a robinson r22 in the lakes for the summer, pilot and paramedic:
Click to expand...

It's got some potential, but you still have a fairly substantial overhead cost: aircraft, pilot, maintenance, which makes the sustainability vs air ambulance finances an issue.
 
Orionblamblam said:
This is a stunt. But then the earliest helicopters were stunts as well.

Something that might eventually work: instead of a jetpack/flying suit, think of a flying stretcher, a cross between a simple pod you can lay someone out in and a quadcopter, perhaps with small turbofans rather than props at the corners. Put a paramedic in it at the base and fly up, or carry it under a helicopter and fly down. The paramedic does not fly it; it flies itself based on GPS and whatnot. Lands near patient, paramedic gets out, tend to patient, puts patient into pod, it flies the patient to safety and then flies back for the paramedic. Ridiculous? Now, sure. Ten years from now? Maybe. Twenty years from now? Maybe not.
Click to expand...
I'd imagine that a military medical evac drone would really come into it's own if the medic was taken out of the equation. That would allow it to be flown into dangerous situations where a manned medical evac vehicle might not be able to operate. It would probably be a fairly short-ranged in order to get the patient to a medic-manned vehicle rather than to a hospital.
 
How do you get the patient in/on/under the drone? How do you get initial treatment to the patient to begin the stabilisation process? How do you replace lost circulating body fluids? How do you stabilise a fracture which could during movement cause massive bleeding trauma in and of itself? With the paramedic out of the equation you will in a lot of instances be delivering a body to the morgue, just a bit quicker is all.
 
Foo Fighter said:
How do you get the patient in/on/under the drone? How do you get initial treatment to the patient to begin the stabilisation process? How do you replace lost circulating body fluids? How do you stabilise a fracture which could during movement cause massive bleeding trauma in and of itself? With the paramedic out of the equation you will in a lot of instances be delivering a body to the morgue, just a bit quicker is all.
Click to expand...
Keep in mind that we're talking about technology that is constantly evolving. A drone capable of flying itself, landing itself and carrying a human some measurable away to safety is a pretty substantial bit of technology. Then extend it a few years further, and the drone becomes a bit of a transformer. The drone doesn't just land near the patient and passively wait for things to happen; it could land next to the patient using a multitude of crab/spider-like legs, then scuttle over next to the patient, straddle the patient, clutch the patient, fly off with the patient. All in seconds without a medic on scene. If it can do that, it can inject the patient with "siddown and shuddup juice" while it actively scans the patient for injuries, adjusting it's straddling arms accordingly.

Developing such a thing for the purpose of once a year sending it up a cliff face to rescue an injured climber? An economic non-starter. Developing the exact same technology to keep near fire bases or half a kilometer behind the front lines, sent swarming into battlefields to pick up injured soldiers mere moments after calls come in? DARPA, please. Would it be better to have a medic there with it to do all the stabilizing and fluid replacing instantly? Sure. But would it be better to scoop up the injured and take them to a medical facility inside, say, three minutes as opposed to waiting for a medic to get there in ten?

Hell, a slightly modified version would be sent a few hundred meters further to pick up enemy injured. Even enemies who weren't injured until the evac-drone came along and whacked 'em upside the noggin. Imagine how the Afghan war would have gone had the Taliban had tales of nighttime raids of flying, roaring demons that swooped in and scooped up stragglers, their screams heard fading into the black moonless night sky...
 
The size and weight of a robot medic or drone with the ability to SEE spinal and other bony injuries would be huge. You need to understand how poor handling can turn a spinal injuiry into a tragedy. Can you even think of the problems when a spinal injury is not obvious? It is far too easy on that three minute flight to stop respiration, spinal trauma can cause massive muscle tremors/spasm which can also kill. There are far too many ways to kill a casualty than can be dealt with by a drone without a ct scanner and a library of medical procedures. The idea is to save as many as possible, this is not the way. Sorry, not personal but I have spent way too much time dealing with these situations and you do not need three minutes to kill the casualty, brain death takes two or less.
 
Foo Fighter said:
You need to understand how poor handling can turn a spinal injuiry into a tragedy.
Click to expand...
Not every injury is a spinal injury. Rejecting even the idea of some technology that might save nine out of ten because it can't save that tenth is short sighted. It would be like outright banning thalidomide because it can cause birth defects.
 
Well, as long as you do not use Thalidomide in pregnant women you should be alright. Quite a few of the outward bound injuries have spinal injuries as a component, a bit more than the one percent.

If you want a robot/drone paramedic working on you or a family member, go for it but if it goes wrong, you had the chance not to have that result. I know I would not trust a drone in those circumstances but what do I know? I'm just an ex advanced level paramedic after all.
 
A very good point but my problem is not the tech, it is integrating the tech in this particular role. No matter how good the robotic brain, the human variety still has the edge and experience takes that to another level. When it comes to manhandling (Pardon the pun) a patient we are still more adaptable than the drone/robot/computer and that will not change for a while to come. A helicopter with a crew, even if the aircraft flies itself although with some conditions who can say, a human being doing the handling and triage. As an aside, I was AFK for a while because my 89 yo neighbour had a fall and could not get up. As I am close the emergency callout team asked me to attend to assess the situation. Using a very calm but professional demeanor, I got her calm and was able to get her off the floor and relaxed enough to begin the recovery process and get her a cup of hot sweet tea. As is usual in this sort of situation, talking to the casualty/patient/neighbour is a large part of the job and it does not matter what location you are in. Annoyingly she had locked her front door and the keepsafe box for her key is hard to read here. I dropped my bleeping wind up torch and it is bust. An annoyance I can handle, the alternative I would rather not have to.
 
Foo Fighter said:
A very good point but my problem is not the tech, it is integrating the tech in this particular role. No matter how good the robotic brain, the human variety still has the edge and experience takes that to another level.
Click to expand...

*For* *now.* And even ignoring the advances in AI, two things:
1: The evac-drones probably won't be fully autonomous. There'll be a tele-op driver, or a medic overseeing things. If the patient is riddled with holes or got set on fire or had their face clawed off by rabid marmosets or if they have the actual plague, spinal injuries are probably not a primary concern: hose 'em down with Medi-Foam, load 'em up, ship 'em out ASAFP. Hell, if'n they got the plague, you *want* the damn thing to be unmanned.
2: Any evac-drone that can fly a passenger *out* can fly a medic *in.* Two of them, if they're small.
 
Drones to locate the casualty, carry equipment - flying paramedic to do the vital stabilization work?
 
starviking said:
Drones to locate the casualty, carry equipment - flying paramedic to do the vital stabilization work?
Click to expand...
Two drones. One for scouting - if needed - another to carry a medic on a stretcher. Medic loads patient onto stretcher and stays behind as drone flies off. Gets picked up be a second drone, if available, or on the first on a second trip.
 
So you save a lot of money, not. I'm out. Fantasy but if you want Buck Rodgers you have to pony up the bucks and they aren't there. Have fun with it.
 
Foo Fighter said:
So you save a lot of money, not. I'm out. Fantasy but if you want Buck Rodgers you have to pony up the bucks and they aren't there. Have fun with it.
Click to expand...
DARPA might beg to differ. Hell, Chinese toy companies might beg to differ. Drone technology is advancing *fast.*

How much does a modern air ambulance helicopter cost? A single flight in one of those things costs around $40,000. Clearly a jeep would be cheaper. A donkey and a cart, cheaper still, and a few slaves carrying a stretcher, cheaperer still. Clearly nobody would go to the bother of procuring a multi-million-dollar turboshaft powered helicopter (Airbus H145 new is about $10 a pop, new) and spending more millions to convert it to an ambulance when the money simply isn't there.

Next you'll suggest that hospitals be equipped with fanciful Flash Gordon machines that use positrons and magnetic fields and such to look inside people. Pffff. Sorcery!
 
Well I'll rise a bit but no more. No need for the Airbus thing, the Bell 47 did quite well and similar would do as well so WHY spend all that dosh on drones or overly complex aircraft? Profit and nought else. Do the job right rather than give money to industry and friends when it is NOT REQUIRED, No need to answer because I really am quite done, thanks so much for playing.
 
Foo Fighter said:
so WHY spend all that dosh on drones or overly complex aircraft? Profit and nought else.
Click to expand...

That, and practical reasons. A drone that is little more than a stretcher and a flight system would be a *lot* cheaper than a modern helicopter, possible by more than an order of magnitude. A full helicopter would necessarily have a range of a hundred miles or more, but the drone might only need the equivalent of a few miles range. This would sever to rescue people from mountains, or off of sinking ships, or soldiers from a battlefield.

And you say "profit" like it's a bad thing. Profit is just about the best motive ever conceived.

Foo Fighter said:
Do the job right rather than give money to industry and friends when it is NOT REQUIRED, No need to answer because I really am quite done,
Click to expand...

You ask a question then bail? Well, I answer it for anyone else reading along. A helicopter capable of carry four or five people, able to reach high speeds and long range, will necessarily be far more expensive than a short-range flying stretcher. These things could be distributed all over hither and yon. Ski resorts could have a stockpile of four or five of them. They could be kept on ships next to or even in the lifeboats. Rescue/police/fire services could have them, packed atop SUVs.
 

Similar threads

Back
Top Bottom