Americas Medevac Failure

[deboyz1014]

I've been following dispatches from Michael Yon for awhile now and this one is a must read. It deals with how following Geneva convention of putting red cross on helicopter is actually costing lives and Army unwillingness to change.

This has been going on for awhile now so can't blame any political party, just individual stubbornness unwilling to change.

This is just the first post I'm linking, if you like then you could follow it on his site.

http://www.michaelyon-online.com/red...ac-failure.htm

[Slumberjack]

Here is the Army's press release on the matter:

http://www.army.mil/article/72250/Ar...MEDEVAC_issue/

"The reporting suggests that putting red crosses on MEDEVACs, and not arming them somehow, is putting injured Soldiers' lives at risk. The facts do not support these assertions for several reasons."


As stated in the article, the helicopters fly in pairs, so they don't need the extra protection. Plus they don't want the added weight of the guns and ammunition, as it would affect its ability to lift, plus limit the range and speed. There is no data to suggest that the MEDEVAC helicopters are targeted any more than other US or coalition aircraft.

This isn't about stubbornness or unwillingness to change: such a change is unneeded and unwanted.

[VA-165 Boomer]

I saw a spot on the TV a week or so ago about a soldier that bled to death waiting on a medevac because a gunship escort was not available to fly with the medevac.

This was not the policy during Nam as far as I know. I have a hard time coming to grips with a situation where a helo was sitting on the ground instead of responding simply because an escort was not available.

[Antrel]

I saw a spot on the TV a week or so ago about a soldier that bled to death waiting on a medevac because a gunship escort was not available to fly with the medevac.

This was not the policy during Nam as far as I know. I have a hard time coming to grips with a situation where a helo was sitting on the ground instead of responding simply because an escort was not available.

I have no idea about Afghanistan. As QRF on standby in Iraq, I saw MEDEVAC helos often leave and return solo and, of course, unarmed.

But Afghanistan isn't Iraq, and I don't know the circumstances for their two-helo policy. I do know that simply sticking a couple minis on a helo isn't a substitute for an armed escort.

[deboyz1014]

That was the post of many posts.

Here is the latest post from a Dustoff Pilot

http://www.michaelyon-online.com/tho...toff-pilot.htm

"1. With only 1 medic on the helo, we will NEVER take more than 2 critical patients. More than that will overload the medic’s ability to treat the patients. So arming medevac will NOT lower the ability of the Blackhawk helicopter to carry patients due to weight. (Hawks in medevac configurations, typically launch at about 16K lbs, but have a max of 22k, so are they saying that guns and ammo weigh 5000+ pounds? Ridiculous."

[Wiredog]

I have no idea about Afghanistan. As QRF on standby in Iraq, I saw MEDEVAC helos often leave and return solo and, of course, unarmed.

But Afghanistan isn't Iraq, and I don't know the circumstances for their two-helo policy. I do know that simply sticking a couple minis on a helo isn't a substitute for an armed escort.

I wonder when you were in Iraq, because it was MNC-I/G3 Air/MEDEVAC policy for ALL missions to flown dual ship beginning in 2005. If you were at LSA Anaconda/Joint Base Balad you may have been seeing aircraft on maintenance test flights flying solo inside the traffic pattern. The other possibility is when the lead aircraft would fly direct to the hospital while chase went to the FARP (fuel point).

[Wayne_L]

The Red Cross is a requirement of the Geneva Convention (which in my opinion is something we should never have been party to in the first place). Nothing in the Geneva Convention prevents medical personnel from being armed or from protecting themselves.

[Sneaky SF Dude]

I saw a spot on the TV a week or so ago about a soldier that bled to death waiting on a medevac because a gunship escort was not available to fly with the medevac.

This was not the policy during Nam as far as I know. I have a hard time coming to grips with a situation where a helo was sitting on the ground instead of responding simply because an escort was not available.

Yes it was.

[Sneaky SF Dude]

That was the post of many posts.

Here is the latest post from a Dustoff Pilot

http://www.michaelyon-online.com/tho...toff-pilot.htm

"1. With only 1 medic on the helo, we will NEVER take more than 2 critical patients. More than that will overload the medic’s ability to treat the patients. So arming medevac will NOT lower the ability of the Blackhawk helicopter to carry patients due to weight. (Hawks in medevac configurations, typically launch at about 16K lbs, but have a max of 22k, so are they saying that guns and ammo weigh 5000+ pounds? Ridiculous."

That rotor-head needs to go to medic school. That's a gross over-simplification. The question is: "Are the patients' chances for survival better on the ground or in the bird?"

He is no doubt correct about his weights, etc.