Ambulance vs Helicopter travel times
This link is to an academic article , 9/05, comparing ground
ambulance and helicopter response times to pick up sites in urban,
suburban and rural settings. It is saying that the ground ambulances
have a far quicker response time and that their response time has
even decreased recently while response time for helicopters has
increased!

http://www.upenn.edu/ldi/issuebrief11_1.pdf please note there ia an
underscore e.g. 11_1

The helipad they want to build here IS NOT for SF or dense
populations as it can’t land here in a street so a person in the city has to be
put in a an ambulance for transport.
New York City has more people and they do not land on the roof of
there hospitals but out in the river and take the injured person from there as it is a
safer way.

Medical Helicopters and Safety
On September 29, 2005, Airlift Northwest helicopter crashed into
Puget Sound off the shore of north Edmonds, killing three. The
helicopter was on its way back to base in Arlington after dropping
off a patient at Harbor View Medical Center in Seattle.
http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/localnews/2002555300_dige12m.htm
l One month later on October 28, 2005, at 23:24 Pacific daylight
time, a twin-engine Agusta A109E helicopter, N950AL, sustained
substantial damage after impacting an object and subsequently terrain
following a loss of power. Its destination was also Harbor View
Medical Center in Seattle.

In the past ten years there has been an exponential increase in
medical helicopter accidents. The Saint Petersburg Times cites the
following accidents among many others:

March, 2000 – A medical helicopter carrying a four-month old girl
with breathing problems crashes near the Texas-Oklahoma border
shortly after taking off in the fog, killing the baby and the three-
person crew.

June 1999 – A medical helicopter returning to base at night in the
fog crashes in eastern Kentucky, killing two pilots, a flight nurse
and a paramedic.

July 1999 – A medevac helicopter crashes near Houston. Witnesses say
pieces shoot out of the chopper’s rotor head just before it crashes,
killing the pilot, a paramedic and a nurse. Next month the FAA
grounds more than 20 percent of hospital helicopters.

March 1998 – An emergency helicopter with a twelve-year-old accident
victim on board crashes in Los Angeles, killing the girl and three
firefighters.

December 1997 – A helicopter taking a traffic victim to a hospital
near Denver becomes tangled in power lines and crashes, killing three
crewmembers and the patient.
(St. Petersburg Times, Medical helicopter crashes since 1990 Series:
BAYFLITE CRASH, Apr 26, 2000)

In his open letter to the citizens of San Francisco, Dr. Bryan E.
Bledsoe, Associate Professor of Emergency Medicine at the
George Washington University Medical Center, cites the frequency of
helicopter accidents on or near hospital helipads. In the past two
years there have been hospital helicopter crashes on or near helipads
in Dallas, Fort Worth, Cleveland and Olympia, Washington. A San
Francisco Chronicle article of January 26, 2006, reports that the
National Transportation Safety Board is reviewing 55 fatal accidents
involving medical helicopters between 2002 and 2005.
http://www.ntsb.gov/recs/letters/2006/a06_12_15.pdf
(SF Gate.com / Washington / Air ambulance safety addressed /
Government urges tougher standards)

In the study entitled Medical Helicopter Accidents in the United
States: A 10-Year Review, Journal Trauma 2004; 56: 1325-1329, Bryan
E. Bledsoe, DO, FACEP, and Michael G. Smith MICP conclude: ” There
was a steady and marked increase in the number of medical helicopter
accidents in the United States during the 10-year period (1993-
2002). The findings are worrisome in light of recent research that
has indicated use of medical helicopters may be excessive and
nonbeneficial for most patients.”

In the year 2005 alone, there were 40 fatalities in 23 accidents
involving helicopter transports according to the Aviation Accident
Report Database of the National Transportation Safety Board.
http://www.faa.gov/safety/data_statistics/nasdac/

When considering the use of medical helicopters, the benefits must be
weighed against the risks. David Crippin, Associate Professor of
Critical Care and Emergency Medicine at the University of Pittsburgh
Medical Center, says:

“In twenty years of experience in urban critical care helicopter
transport,
I can count on the fingers of one hand the number of times I thought
flying
a patient to the hospital made a significant difference in outcome
compared
to lights and siren.”
(Wall Street Journal, March 3, 2005)

“The Journal of Trauma” of November, 2002, article, “The Utility of
Helicopter Transport of Trauma Patients from the Injury Scene in an
Urban Trauma System” by Clayton Shatney, MD; S. Jean, RN, MBA; John
Sherck, MD; Che-Cuen Ho, MICP, reports:

From the findings of this study of 947 consecutive patients
transported by medical helicopter:

“The helicopter is used excessively for scene transport of trauma
victims in our metropolitan trauma system. New criteria should be
developed for helicopter deployment in the urban trauma environment.”

Earthquakes are a major concern in California. San Francisco General
Hospital is proposing to land helicopters, the heaviest of which is
the UH 60 Blackhawk that weighs over 20,000 pounds and is 64 feel
long, on the roof of a building that is seismically uncertain.

We live in densely populated neighborhoods with 90% wood frame homes.
Charles Scawthorn, PhD, Department of Urban Management of Kyoto
University, who has practiced as a structural engineer and risk
analyst for over thirty years and is a licensed structural engineer
in California and Washington, says that fire danger is greater than
that of earthquakes in San Francisco. A helicopter crash could start
a major fire. Wind is a main accelerator of fires. Had there been
significant wind the day of the 1989 earthquake, according to
Professor Scawthorn, the whole Marina district would have gone up in
flames.
http://cbs5.com/video/?id=12595@kpix.dayport.com

Weather is also a key factor in considering helicopter flight safety.
The dangers of San Francisco’s prevalent westerly winds and frequent
fog that are a constant air traffic hazard would be magnified for
helicopters flying low while attempting to land at San Francisco
General Hospital. Wind was a contributing factor in an accident of a
medical helicopter that crashed in a ball of flames against the side
of Metro Medical Center in Cleveland in January, 2002. The helicopter
was taking off from University Hospitals just after midnight when it
hit one of the buildings and caught fire.
http://www.newsnet5.com/news/1195839/detail.html

The recommendations of the National Transportation Safety Board’s
February 7, 2006 report cite an alarming increase in medical
helicopter accidents. The report states: “Much of the EMS mission has
associated risks. Pressure to take or complete a mission, weather,
nighttime flight, spatial disorientation resulting from lack of
visual cues, and pilot training and experience were identified as
risk factors in the Safety Board’s 1988 safety study of commercial
EMS helicopter operations.” The Safety Board staff has found that
some EMS operators use night vision imaging systems to avoid
obstructions at night. However, they say that most EMS operators do
not use this equipment because of the expense of the system, training
and aircraft modifications; and most importantly for the city of San
Francisco - the fact that the equipment cannot be used in locations
that have ambient light.
(National Transportation Safety Board, Safety Recommendation,
February 7, 2006 refer to: A-006-12 through – 15)

In the February 28, 2005 New York Times article, “Crashes Start
Debate on the Safety of Sky Ambulances,” Barry Meier states: “… the
industry’s rapid, competitive growth may also be exacting a toll.
Federal regulators and some doctors worry that the pool of skilled
helicopter pilots has become drained and some of those flying are
making poor decisions. In addition, some companies are flying older
helicopters that lack the instruments needed to help pilots navigate
safely. Of the 27 fatal medical helicopter accidents that occurred
between 1998 and 2004, 21 were at night and often in bad weather,
according to federal statistics.”

The noise is not the only thing. Though that is part ofthe problem it will cause
health problem for us as we will not get the sleep we need and make
some have sleeping disorders as well.

The cost is a issue as well they will charge $15,000. to $20,000. per
flight and when they get to the hospital if you are there in the E-
Room you will have to wait longer and if the persons Insurance won’t
pay. You will in higher cost as they said that is why we charge $45.
for a aspirin and the like. This is how they justify a high charge. I
think they only want the Helipad for the added Money as they have
said at there meeting.

If you build a pier It could be built so that more then one can land
and the medical navy hospital could dock in the event of a earthquake
or terrorist attack. If it is on a building you won’t be able to use
the elevators so are you going to carry the people up and down 165′
of stairs.

As it is Our streets will be less safe to walk, bike and drive as the Ambulance will be speeding on streets and by passing way stops and red lights. They said there will be 5000 more cars each day in the area as well. We will welcome a new hospital with all its noise and prolems with traffic parking and speeding Ambulance but the Helipad is a bad Idea on a roof. It should be on the bay if we need one. There was one there and they shut it down if it was so important should they have done that?

So if you think just some noise is what it is all about think
again. Thanks Tim

If someone told you that you could save one person’s life by simply being awoken in the middle of the night would you not make the sacrifice? Have we become such a self centered society that we are no longer willing to be inconvenienced to help our fellow man? What if your life depended on using a heliport but in order to use it you would have to disturb hundreds of people’s sleep? Would you choose to die instead?

I am not arguing that you shouldn’t open a dialogue with UCSF to understand the reasons why the development is being proposed as it is. Additionally I am not arguing that you shouldn’t work with UCSF to explore alternative options. I am however arguing that if the plans are based on the safest and fastest ways to provide necessary treatment to those in dire need that you not delay the development.

Personally I am opposed to all the development that is happening in what use to be a very sleepy part of the city. Even so there are a small number of developments that I just can’t argue against. Providing healthcare for my fellow citizens is one of them. I strongly urge you to think about how many people’s lives could be improved by this development and not your own selfish motivations. UCSF is not planning on building a nightclub nor are they planning on cramming hundreds of housing units into a single square block. They are planning on saving lives.