Thank you Duxford for the private airshow :)

[Vir Campestris]

Thee Slinsgby Fireflys in close formation right over the house on Saturday.

Looking at the tracks we're not special though, they have been getting
about a bit.

(I tried to send them a direct message and failed. The contact page
doesn't seem to allow you to send a message!)

Andy

[Roland Perry]

In message <s79f5d$3u5$1...@dont-email.me>, at 21:02:52 on Sun, 9 May 2021,
Vir Campestris <vir.cam...@invalid.invalid> remarked:

Sure they came from Duxford? I was there[1] all day (10hrs) Saturday
counting ballot papers and it was horrible raining and windy in the
morning, and even windier in the afternoon. Didn't see any planes at all
taking off or landing. On Friday there were a few, but they just seemed
to be doing takeoff/circle/land.

[1] At the big modern hanger, but for Covid reasons we had to take all
our refreshment breaks outside - no food or drink allowed indoors.
--
Roland Perry

[Tim Ward]

On 10/05/2021 06:53, Roland Perry wrote:
>
> Sure they came from Duxford? I was there[1] all day (10hrs) Saturday
> counting ballot papers

How did you get that gig? - had they run out of current and former
council employees looking for a change from the day job?

--
Tim Ward - 07801 703 600
www.brettward.co.uk

[Roland Perry]

In message <P15mI.411215$e0cb....@fx19.ams4>, at 08:12:46 on Mon, 10
May 2021, Tim Ward <t...@brettward.co.uk> remarked:

>On 10/05/2021 06:53, Roland Perry wrote:

>> Sure they came from Duxford? I was there[1] all day (10hrs) Saturday
>>counting ballot papers

>How did you get that gig? - had they run out of current and former
>council employees looking for a change from the day job?

The South Cambs count assistants seemed to be mainly non
council-employees, although the team leaders were internal.

ps What went amiss with the Cambridge count - we heard they'd gone on
until 11pm on Friday (we finished at 3pm), and on Saturday we'd done our
first-count for the Mayor by 11am [and were expecting the final result
by 1pm] but we sat around twiddling our fingers for *hours* (maybe till
3pm) waiting for the first-count results from City and Peterborough -
because that determines who was knocked out.

We then did the second count in about an hour, but the final result
wasn't announced until 7pm.

Of all districts we had the most ballots to count - 40% more than Cambs
City.

While we were waiting for the Mayoral numbers, we forged on with the PCC
first count (Rupert romped into first place in SCDC, but was later
eliminated). That meant the SCDC second PCC count was even larger than
any of the others, but weren't the last to report.
--
Roland Perry

[Vir Campestris]

On 10/05/2021 06:53, Roland Perry wrote:

> Sure they came from Duxford? I was there[1] all day (10hrs) Saturday
> counting ballot papers and it was horrible raining and windy in the
> morning, and even windier in the afternoon. Didn't see any planes at all
> taking off or landing. On Friday there were a few, but they just seemed
> to be doing takeoff/circle/land.
>
> [1] At the big modern hanger, but for Covid reasons we had to take all
>     our refreshment breaks outside - no food or drink allowed indoors.

The track on
<https://globe.adsbexchange.com/>

started there. Of course they could have just flown over, and turned on
the transponder at that moment, but it seems unlikely.

Andy

[Roland Perry]

In message <s7c7gm$qnb$2...@dont-email.me>, at 22:10:46 on Mon, 10 May

2021, Vir Campestris <vir.cam...@invalid.invalid> remarked:

What time Saturday did they apparently take off? (After 7pm, we'd gone
by then).

There were some planes like the ones you mention on Friday, one even had
a tanker refuelling it.
--
Roland Perry

[Peter]

Vir Campestris wrote:
> On 10/05/2021 06:53, Roland Perry wrote:
>> Sure they came from Duxford? I was there[1] all day (10hrs) Saturday
>> counting ballot papers and it was horrible raining and windy in the
>> morning, and even windier in the afternoon. Didn't see any planes at
>> all taking off or landing. On Friday there were a few, but they just
>> seemed to be doing takeoff/circle/land.
>>
>> [1] At the big modern hanger, but for Covid reasons we had to take all
>>      our refreshment breaks outside - no food or drink allowed indoors.
>
> The track on
> <https://globe.adsbexchange.com/>

Excise my ignorance, but what is the significance of the colour of the
aircraft? When I viewed that site most are orange but there's one blue
on, one purple one and one green one.

>
> started there. Of course they could have just flown over, and turned on
> the transponder at that moment, but it seems unlikely.
>
> Andy

--
Just as 'beautiful' points the way for aesthetics and 'good' for ethics,
so do words like 'true' for logic. All sciences have truth as their
goal; but logic is also concerned with it in a quite different way:
logic has much the same relation to truth as physics has to weight or
heat. Frege in 'Thoughts' (Der Gedanke)

[David Williams]

Peter <peterxp...@hotmail.com> writes:

> Vir Campestris wrote:
>> On 10/05/2021 06:53, Roland Perry wrote:
>>> Sure they came from Duxford? I was there[1] all day (10hrs)
>>> Saturday counting ballot papers and it was horrible raining and
>>> windy in the morning, and even windier in the afternoon. Didn't see
>>> any planes at all taking off or landing. On Friday there were a
>>> few, but they just seemed to be doing takeoff/circle/land.
>>>
>>> [1] At the big modern hanger, but for Covid reasons we had to take all
>>>      our refreshment breaks outside - no food or drink allowed indoors.
>>
>> The track on
>> <https://globe.adsbexchange.com/>
>
> Excise my ignorance, but what is the significance of the colour of the
> aircraft? When I viewed that site most are orange but there's one
> blue on, one purple one and one green one.

The colour of the aircraft icons (and the tracks of selected aircraft)
is a guide to altitude. Orange is near the ground while blues and
purples are above 30,000 feet.

You can display a colour key on the map. Open the settings by clicking
the cogged gear icon at top right of the map then select "Altitude
Chart".

FWIW, that website is better for seeing a live situation than an old
track - unless you can find the same aircraft flying now. Other
websites exist, all with their own strengths and weaknesses.

--
David

[Tim Ward]

On 11/05/2021 12:35, David Williams wrote:
>
> The colour of the aircraft icons (and the tracks of selected aircraft)
> is a guide to altitude.

Always useful to know. Compare and contrast the good old days of flying
around East Anglia when most people seemed to have primary radar only:

"Fast traffic crossing from right to left, three miles ahead of you."

Both you and the controller knew that was an airliner five miles above
you, but he still had to call the traffic out.

[Vir Campestris]

On 11/05/2021 06:34, Roland Perry wrote:
> What time Saturday did they apparently take off? (After 7pm, we'd gone
> by then).
>
> There were some planes like the ones you mention on Friday, one even had
> a tanker refuelling it.

Earlier than that.

But I'm now wondering if perhaps it was Friday, and I had a brain fart.

(I don't work either day.)

Andy

[Roland Perry]

In message <s7eptg$pul$5...@dont-email.me>, at 21:37:04 on Tue, 11 May

2021, Vir Campestris <vir.cam...@invalid.invalid> remarked:

I think it was very likely to be Friday. There were a few likely-looking
planes around during the morning (but I left by 3pm)
--
Roland Perry

[David Williams]

Does it jog your memory to say that, of the two days, Friday had
the better weather? Also on Friday, did you see a pair of V22
Ospreys on two or three irregular circuits from Mildenhall and
around Cambridge?

I couldn't find a Firefly near Duxford in a quick history
playback. I did find the dual-seat Spitfires, a Harvard and a
North American P51 - so the season is starting.

It's also worth remembering that the BBMF Lancaster is still at
Duxford for maintenance before return to Coningsby.

> (I don't work either day.)

A great ambition. ;-)

--
David

[Roland Perry]

In message <87zgx0t...@yahoo.co.uk>, at 10:25:47 on Wed, 12 May
2021, David Williams <davi...@yahoo.co.uk> remarked:

>Vir Campestris <vir.cam...@invalid.invalid> writes:
>
>> On 11/05/2021 06:34, Roland Perry wrote:
>>> What time Saturday did they apparently take off? (After 7pm, we'd
>>> gone by then).
>>>
>>> There were some planes like the ones you mention on Friday, one even
>>> had a tanker refuelling it.
>>
>> Earlier than that.
>>
>> But I'm now wondering if perhaps it was Friday, and I had a brain fart.
>
>Does it jog your memory to say that, of the two days, Friday had
>the better weather?

I already mentioned the weather on Saturday was foul. Wind and rain in
the morning, and in the afternoon the wind was toppling some quite
sturdy crowd-control barriers, set up to protect the election count
area.

>Also on Friday, did you see a pair of V22 Ospreys on two or three
>irregular circuits from Mildenhall and around Cambridge?

There were some Ospreys north of Ely on perhaps Monday. At least that's
what I think I heard (sounding a bit like a helicopter but also
different).

>I couldn't find a Firefly near Duxford in a quick history
>playback. I did find the dual-seat Spitfires, a Harvard and a
>North American P51 - so the season is starting.
>
>It's also worth remembering that the BBMF Lancaster is still at
>Duxford for maintenance before return to Coningsby.
>
>> (I don't work either day.)
>
>A great ambition. ;-)
>

--

Roland Perry

[The Natural Philosopher]

On 12/05/2021 10:56, Roland Perry wrote:
> In message <87zgx0t...@yahoo.co.uk>, at 10:25:47 on Wed, 12 May
> 2021, David Williams <davi...@yahoo.co.uk> remarked:
>> Vir Campestris <vir.cam...@invalid.invalid> writes:
>>
>>> On 11/05/2021 06:34, Roland Perry wrote:
>>>> What time Saturday did they apparently take off? (After 7pm, we'd
>>>> gone by then).
>>>>
>>>> There were some planes like the ones you mention on Friday, one even
>>>> had a tanker refuelling it.
>>>
>>> Earlier than that.
>>>
>>> But I'm now wondering if perhaps it was Friday, and I had a brain fart.
>>
>> Does it jog your memory to say that, of the two days, Friday had
>> the better weather?
>
> I already mentioned the weather on Saturday was foul. Wind and rain in
> the morning, and in the afternoon the wind was toppling some quite
> sturdy crowd-control barriers, set up to protect the election count area.
>
>> Also on Friday, did you see a pair of V22 Ospreys on two or three
>> irregular circuits from Mildenhall and around Cambridge?
>
> There were some Ospreys north of Ely on perhaps Monday. At least that's
> what I think I heard (sounding a bit like a helicopter but also different).
>

There seem to be two flying out of the RAF bases at either Mildenhall or
Lakenheath

I've also seen a Beech 'Staggerwing' on two occasions now.

And someone fooling about in a Pitts Special...

>> I couldn't find a Firefly near Duxford in a quick history
>> playback. I did find the dual-seat Spitfires, a Harvard and a
>> North American P51 - so the season is starting.
>>
>> It's also worth remembering that the BBMF Lancaster is still at
>> Duxford for maintenance before return to Coningsby.
>>
>>> (I don't work either day.)
>>
>> A great ambition. ;-)
>>
>


--

“There are two ways to be fooled. One is to believe what isn’t true; the
other is to refuse to believe what is true.”

—Soren Kierkegaard

[Roland Perry]

In message <s7ger3$8d7$1...@dont-email.me>, at 12:40:19 on Wed, 12 May
2021, The Natural Philosopher <t...@invalid.invalid> remarked:

>> There were some Ospreys north of Ely on perhaps Monday. At least
>>that's what I think I heard (sounding a bit like a helicopter but
>>also different).
>
>There seem to be two flying out of the RAF bases at either Mildenhall
>or Lakenheath

As far as I'm aware they are based at Mildenhall.
--
Roland Perry

[Fevric J. Glandules]

David Williams wrote:

[V22 Osprey]

Everyone see this?


https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/av/uk-england-cambridgeshire-56847090

[Roland Perry]

In message <s7mshb$voh$1...@dont-email.me>, at 22:10:51 on Fri, 14 May
2021, Fevric J. Glandules <f...@invalid.invalid> remarked:

Yes it was all over social media when it happened.

I wonder if that was part of the same military exercise as is reportedly
causing a lot more flying in and out of Lakenheath and Mildenhall the
last week?
--
Roland Perry

[The Natural Philosopher]

Have now. well you need to withstand 100mph+ winds on a helipad/
Lets hope they build it back better


--
“The urge to save humanity is almost always only a false face for the
urge to rule it.”
– H. L. Mencken

[Tim Ward]

On 15/05/2021 10:53, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
> On 14/05/2021 23:10, Fevric J. Glandules wrote:
>> David Williams wrote:
>>
>> [V22 Osprey]
>>
>> Everyone see this?
>>
>>
>> https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/av/uk-england-cambridgeshire-56847090
>>
> Have now. well you need to withstand 100mph+ winds on a helipad/
> Lets hope they build it back better

That's not really the point. The point is that the aircraft and the pad
were unsuited to each other, just like you wouldn't want to land a 747
in a ploughed field, and this should have been discovered during routine
flight planning - there's plenty of documentation on both. The take-off
should not have been attempted.

[The Natural Philosopher]

"should". I love that word. Also noted the stupidity of a helipad that
cant take a helicopter.

'This helipad *should* not be used for helicopters'


--
The biggest threat to humanity comes from socialism, which has utterly
diverted our attention away from what really matters to our existential
survival, to indulging in navel gazing and faux moral investigations
into what the world ought to be, whilst we fail utterly to deal with
what it actually is.

[Tim Ward]

On 15/05/2021 16:51, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
>
> Also noted the stupidity of a helipad that cant take a helicopter.
>
> 'This helipad *should* not be used for helicopters'

Any area designated for the landing and take-off of aircraft will have a
specification of the type of aircraft it can and can't handle. Both the
builders of the facility *and the operators of the aircraft* should have
been familiar with CAP1264.

Not all helicopter landing pads will be suitable for all helicopters,
just as runway 18 at Fenland isn't suitable for an A380. It's up to the
provider of the facility to document its features and it's up to the
operator of the aircraft to ensure that the documented features meet the
requirements of their aircraft.

Would you regard runway 18 at Fenland as "stupid" because it "can't take
a fixed wing aircraft"?

[The Natural Philosopher]

if it cant take a fixed wing aircraft it isnt a run way is it?


--
“People believe certain stories because everyone important tells them,
and people tell those stories because everyone important believes them.
Indeed, when a conventional wisdom is at its fullest strength, one’s
agreement with that conventional wisdom becomes almost a litmus test of
one’s suitability to be taken seriously.”

Paul Krugman

[Fevric J. Glandules]

Tim Ward wrote:

> That's not really the point. The point is that the aircraft and the pad
> were unsuited to each other, just like you wouldn't want to land a 747
> in a ploughed field, and this should have been discovered during routine
> flight planning - there's plenty of documentation on both. The take-off
> should not have been attempted.

Perhaps the landing was a bad idea too :-}

[Tim Ward]

There are all sorts of places you can land that you can't take off from.
Part of the "shall I land there?" planning is "will I be able to take
off from there again?".

(As an extreme example: the Lake District has a low speed limit for
motorised craft. You could land a floatplane with the engine turned shut
down, but you wouldn't be allowed to take off again.)

[Roland Perry]

In message <5W4oI.505321$hcZe....@fx46.ams4>, at 09:42:41 on Sun, 16

May 2021, Tim Ward <t...@brettward.co.uk> remarked:

>>> That's not really the point. The point is that the aircraft and the
>>> pad were unsuited to each other, just like you wouldn't want to
>>> land a 747 in a ploughed field, and this should have been
>>> discovered during routine flight planning - there's plenty of
>>> documentation on both. The take-off should not have been
>>> attempted.

>> Perhaps the landing was a bad idea too :-}
>
>There are all sorts of places you can land that you can't take off
>from.

>Part of the "shall I land there?" planning is "will I be able to take
>off from there again?".
>
>(As an extreme example: the Lake District has a low speed limit for
>motorised craft. You could land a floatplane with the engine turned
>shut down, but you wouldn't be allowed to take off again.)

And I think we are beginning to lose the plot re the Addenbrookes
Helipad: the offending aircraft wasn't a helicopter, it was VTOL plane.

And one with supposedly well known restrictions on the surfaces from
which it's allowed to operate.
--
Roland Perry

[Brian Morrison]

On Sun, 16 May 2021 10:42:02 +0100, Roland Perry wrote:

> And I think we are beginning to lose the plot re the Addenbrookes
> Helipad: the offending aircraft wasn't a helicopter, it was VTOL plane.

One well known for causing problems with nearby structures, there's a
well-known video from the US where an Osprey brings down a fair amount of
in-leaf tree branches right onto the spectators gathered to see its
arrival.

--

Brian

[David Williams]

Tim Ward <t...@brettward.co.uk> writes:

> On 16/05/2021 00:08, Fevric J. Glandules wrote:
>> Tim Ward wrote:
>>
>>> That's not really the point. The point is that the aircraft and the
>>> pad were unsuited to each other, just like you wouldn't want to
>>> land a 747 in a ploughed field, and this should have been
>>> discovered during routine flight planning - there's plenty of
>>> documentation on both. The take-off should not have been
>>> attempted.
>>
>> Perhaps the landing was a bad idea too :-}
>
> There are all sorts of places you can land that you can't take off from.
> Part of the "shall I land there?" planning is "will I be able to take
> off from there again?".

There's at least one Cambridgeshire example where the answer
was "No - but I don't care".

> (As an extreme example: the Lake District has a low speed limit for
> motorised craft. You could land a floatplane with the engine turned shut
> down, but you wouldn't be allowed to take off again.)

Sir! Sir! I've got an answer, but you might need to be patient ...

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=w7J7VSz6waw

... and there are other solutions. Search for "float plane take
off" or take my second favourite, for purity of approach and
animal interest:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ncQqaIgK8Ac

I can't see any of these approaches working for an Osprey!

--
David

[Tim Ward]

On 16/05/2021 17:18, David Williams wrote:
>
> Sir! Sir! I've got an answer, but you might need to be patient ...
>
> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=w7J7VSz6waw

:-) - and that was quicker than getting a Beaver off the water, too.

Someone let me fly one once, for a few minutes. I did *not* enquire as
to the legality of this and I did *not* write it in my log book.

My favourite aircraft

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3w_v0k57KhE

[The Natural Philosopher]

On 16/05/2021 17:18, David Williams wrote:

> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ncQqaIgK8Ac
>
> I can't see any of these approaches working for an Osprey!

Imagine getting engine failure just after takeoff on that one


--
Climate Change: Socialism wearing a lab coat.

[Fevric J. Glandules]

The Natural Philosopher wrote:

> On 16/05/2021 17:18, David Williams wrote:
>> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ncQqaIgK8Ac
>>
>> I can't see any of these approaches working for an Osprey!
> Imagine getting engine failure just after takeoff on that one

Not good, but the proprotors *are* linked by a driveshaft.

Having said that,
"only with the lightest possible load, under ideal conditions and
at low altitude could a V-22 hover on one engine"
https://breakingdefense.com/2015/07/fatal-crash-prompts-marines-to-change-osprey-flight-rules/

[Vir Campestris]

Today's one was a Herc in the back garden. Well, almost.

~300m away and ADSB says 700ft. Which is only ~300ft above us :)

Surprisingly quiet.

Andy
--
300m = 1000ft; 300ft = 100m :)

[Tim Ward]

On 20/05/2021 22:15, Vir Campestris wrote:
> Today's one was a Herc in the back garden. Well, almost.

Once Upon A Time my ground school lecturer turned up at the evening
class somewhat hot and sweaty.

He'd spent the day flying a Herc around with both the engines on one
wing switched off. "Bloody hard work" he said.

[David Williams]

Vir Campestris <vir.cam...@invalid.invalid> writes:

> Today's one was a Herc in the back garden. Well, almost.
>
> ~300m away and ADSB says 700ft. Which is only ~300ft above us :)
>
> Surprisingly quiet.

OTOH, you can hear them doing ground tests at Cambridge from a
substantial area of the city.

-

By the by, both FR24 and ADS-B Exchange are now showing (some of)
the sorties by (some of) Lakenheath's F-15s. All approximately
positioned, and sometimes erratically labelled within same
flight. [Will that level of qualification satisfy Tim?]

Online, it looks like this morning's various outings to Scotland,
IoW, Salisbury and north Norfolk have just finished. Not likely
to add much ground truth with today's cloud cover...

--
David

[Espen Koht]

On 16/05/2021 10:42, Roland Perry wrote:
>>
>
> And I think we are beginning to lose the plot re the Addenbrookes
> Helipad: the offending aircraft wasn't a helicopter, it was VTOL plane.
>
> And one with supposedly well known restrictions on the surfaces from
> which it's allowed to operate.

I know I'm late to this but from the original video it was already
obvious the Osprey simply seems to have whipped up some plastic walkways
leading up to it, but was itself on the grass. So the 'helipad' was not
some kind engineered structure or specially treated surface which could
be damaged.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/av/uk-england-cambridgeshire-56847090

Unsurprisingly a follow up article concludes:

"Air ambulances have been able to land on grass close to the usual site
since Friday."

[Roland Perry]

In message <u3*x0...@news.chiark.greenend.org.uk>, at 00:35:26 on Sun, 4
Jul 2021, Espen Koht <eh...@cam.ac.uk> remarked:

The surface covering which was "whipped up" *is* the helipad, and serves
to provide a reasonable surface for the helicopter to land on, and the
land ambulance that's required to ferry the patient the last few hundred
yards, and the various personnel involved, not to get muddy wheels/
boots.

<https://helpappeal.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2015/09/Addenbrookes-
Hospital-Cambridge-Helipad.jpg>

Temporarily (or at some other hospitals' permanently assigned landing
fields) they have to put up with an entirely grassy surface.

I was surprised they originally said the helicopter would have to land
as far away as the airport, rather than elsewhere in the hospital
grounds.
--
Roland Perry

[Espen Koht]

On 04/07/2021 6:49, Roland Perry wrote:
>> "Air ambulances have been able to land on grass close to the usual site
>> since Friday."
> The surface covering which was "whipped up"*is* the helipad, and serves
> to provide a reasonable surface for the helicopter to land on, and the
> land ambulance that's required to ferry the patient the last few hundred
> yards, and the various personnel involved, not to get muddy wheels/
> boots.
>
> <https://helpappeal.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2015/09/Addenbrookes-
> Hospital-Cambridge-Helipad.jpg>

I was going by the video and this photo:
<https://goo.gl/maps/pAYGqw61J14Q3tvv9> so I had falsely concluded the
decking was for ground traffic only, but that appears a trick of the
perspective.

Summary seems to be that the Osprey did land and take off from the most
reasonable surface (ie. the grass) but was in retrospect too close to
the insufficiently anchored decking used by the regular air ambulance.

[Roland Perry]

In message <vNy*jv...@news.chiark.greenend.org.uk>, at 12:50:31 on Wed,
7 Jul 2021, Espen Koht <eh...@cam.ac.uk> remarked:

Only insufficiently anchored when something as brutal as an Osprey
landed nearby. It has survived hundreds of regular helicopters.
--
Roland Perry

[Espen Koht]

On 07/07/2021 13:40, Roland Perry wrote:
>> Summary seems to be that the Osprey did land and take off from the
>> most reasonable surface (ie. the grass) but was in retrospect too
>> close to the insufficiently anchored decking used by the regular air
>> ambulance.
>
> Only insufficiently anchored when something as brutal as an Osprey
> landed nearby. It has survived hundreds of regular helicopters.

Seems almost a bit too convenient in the end as there is obvious some
serious problems around the whole helipad arrangement at Addenbrooke's
which I can't quite my head around:

Major Trauma Centre for the East of England has a mere 'temporary
helipad' (as witnessed) constructed *8 years ago* from funds raised 15
years ago?!? What's really going on here?

<https://web.archive.org/web/20180220152040/https://www.eaaa.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2013/03/Issue-30-Spring-2013.pdf>

[Tim Ward]

On 07/07/2021 23:57, Espen Koht wrote:
>
> What's really going on here?

I think it may he something along the lines of:

"The NHS wouldn't have built it themselves and don't particularly want
it, as they could make better use of the money and resource, ie save
more lives be spending it differently. It's been imposed on them by
these well-meaning but ignorant amateurs (the fund raisers) who like the
glamour of playing with helicopters."

Compare and contrast the German experience. There was a study some
decades back which concluded that the most cost effective way to save
QALYs was to buy helicopters to get boy racers from motorway crashes to
hospitals faster. But maybe that's just what comes of not having a speed
limit.

[Roland Perry]

In message <30f*AX...@news.chiark.greenend.org.uk>, at 23:57:17 on Wed,

7 Jul 2021, Espen Koht <eh...@cam.ac.uk> remarked:

"until the landing site opened, the air ambulance had to land at the Gog
Magog Golf Course around two miles away"

What people don't understand about air-ambulances is that not very many
hospitals have "proper" helipads, not least because the NHS has no
budget for them, just like it has no budget for the flights.#

And yet the NHS has established these regional major-trauma centres...
--
Roland Perry

[tony sayer]

In article <sc697r$lii$1...@dont-email.me>, Tim Ward <t...@brettward.co.uk>
scribeth thus

>On 07/07/2021 23:57, Espen Koht wrote:
>>
>> What's really going on here?
>
>I think it may he something along the lines of:
>
>"The NHS wouldn't have built it themselves and don't particularly want
>it, as they could make better use of the money and resource, ie save
>more lives be spending it differently. It's been imposed on them by
>these well-meaning but ignorant amateurs (the fund raisers) who like the
>glamour of playing with helicopters."
>

Well it wasn't for the Air ambulance that got me to Addenbrookes in the
absolute nick of time 12 years ago now - if it hadn't been there this ng
would have lost a contributor;!..

If they wanted a decent helipad then all they have to do is call
Mickgeorge who do a lot of charity projects, a large lump of reinforced
concrete is nothing compared to what they do get up to!...

>Compare and contrast the German experience. There was a study some
>decades back which concluded that the most cost effective way to save
>QALYs was to buy helicopters to get boy racers from motorway crashes to
>hospitals faster. But maybe that's just what comes of not having a speed
>limit.
>

--

Tony Sayer


Man is least himself when he talks in his own person.

Give him a keyboard, and he will reveal himself.