flight positions - page 3
I'm curious. Where do you search for flight nurse positions? There are 3 services in my area but none are hiring for RN's at this time. Is there a web site with positions advertised? I have almost all the certifications i've been... Read More
- 0Dec 1, '06 by Shamira AizzaQuote from 58flyerSo now you have to start using indirect insults? Nothing flew over my head; you are simply straying from the discussion that was made without qualification and you failed to prove that working as a flight nurse is dangerous.So sorry if we don't always agree, but that's just life. Too bad that flew (pun intended) right over your head.
BTW, an EMS pilot cannot simply use NVG's just because he has a pair at home. The FAA requires training specific to the aircraft he is using and that the cockpit be configured for NVG flying. So not only are the goggles expensive, so is the mandatory training by the FAA, and the required cockpit modification. Again, I am an advocate of goggles, but as of yet, no-one has shown any proof that using goggles in the EMS environment has done anything to reduce the crash rate. Personally, I believe any program that has already made a financial commitment to goggles probably has had a long-standing aggressive and progressive safety program in place and has not had a problem with crashes. Additionally, I would speculate that the majority of crashes that have occurred would not have been avoided even if there were already a goggle program in place. Not to get too far off the mark, but it's reasonable to reply to these claims.
So if you think helicopter flying is safer, see what (News Article - Slack & Davis, L.L.P. www.slackdavis.com) has to say; in this data, the fatality rate for fixed-wing air ambulances is higher per crash than rotor wing air ambulance.
So like I said, I saw a lot of claims suggesting that being a flight nurse is somehow dangerous, and this is simply untrue. Then you shared two stories of having engine failures in both FW and RW aircraft, both which exhibited the same outcome...no injuries. You definitely have the privilege to make comments with all the experience you have, but you have to have more than an opinion...you have to have a point, and you have to qualify your belief's with more than just 'I've been flying since the Wright brother's franchised their bicycle shop.' You have to show some kind of validity to the simple claims that working as a flight nurse is somehow 'dangerous' or more dangerous than working as any other kind of nurse.
Still, no-one has shown support for this claim.
- 0Dec 4, '06 by teiladayOf these 55 EMS aircraft accidents, 41 were helicopter EMS accidents, 16 of which were fatal, resulting in a total of 39 fatalities and 13 serious injuries; 14 were airplane EMS accidents, 5 of which were fatal, resulting in 15 fatalities and 6 serious injuries. Since the initiation of this special investigation in January 2005, 9 additional EMS aircraft accidents have occurred, resulting in 8 fatalities.
2 licensed pilots on this thread with helicopter and fixed wing experience agree that helicopter flight is more dangerous than fixed wing flight.
Can you find me one single EMS pilot, who is licensed to fly fixed and rotary wing, who will disagree that flying in a helicopter engaged in typical rotary wing flight profiles (hovering, langing in confined spaces, typical EMS terrain flight, etc.) is generally more dangerous than fixed wing aircraft typically engaged in EMS fixed wing flight profiles? I seriously doubt it..
*More specifically, a flight nurse flying in a helicopter generally faces greater danger (simply due to flight profile(s) of an EMS helicopter), than a flight nurse on a fixed wing EMS platform. Please find me one EMS PILOT (not nurse) that will disagree with that statement.
I think that most (if not all) pilots would agree, that a flight nurse (no matter how experienced in his/her nursing field) is hardly qualified to speak about the totality of relative dangers, and how they contrast, between fixed wing and rotary wing flight.
Licensed nurses are experts in their field, and are awesome experts!
That said.. they are still nurses and not licensed pilots, with the knowledge and expertise that comes with years of experience flying BOTH airplanes and helicopters.
Lastly, I think your interpretation of the above statistic(s) as a "nurse" is a bit different than how we would interpret such as pilots. Reading the stats above, I'd rather be a flight nurse on an airplane any day of the week (as far as a chance of injury is concerned), as opposed to a helicopter.
A pilot licensed as early as last night, could probably tell you that heavy icing enountered above 10,000 ft (that can't be cleared), is more likley to kill 5 onboard an airplane, compared to a helicopter whos tail rotor clips a hardwood at 30ft AGL... but which is LIKELY to happen more often? Fatal icing in an EMS fixed wing, or a crash due to terrain, natural feature and or man-made structure impact in an EMS helicopter?
I think all EMS **PILOTS** would state the latter.
Lets hear what more actual dual licensed PILOTS have to say, as licensed pilots are without doubt, a more reliable source of information on aviation hazards than are licensed nurses..
I think I'm starting to see why men (especially those with a college degree) are more likely to gravitate to PA and med schools vs. entering the nursing profession.
((very cordial poke in the ribs))
- 0Dec 4, '06 by Shamira AizzaSome people will convolute and dilute the discussion in any way thinkable to cover up what may have been a mis-spoken sentence. I'm not trying to be disrespectful, but you can only expect people to take original comments at face value.
You said, "Flying is dangerous business."
That's what you said. You then told us to ratchet up the 'danger factor' if it was a helicopter.
I did NOT disagree with you about FW vs. RW...even though you chose to repetively focus on this diversion about FW being safer than RW. So what, who cares?
What I disagree with is your blanket statement saying "flying is a dangerous business" in the context of being a flight nurse. I'm suspecting that you believe this simply because if something goes wrong, someone could get killed. I view this claim academically and subjectively, meaning, statistically the activity should actually reflect how dangerous it is instead of subjectively supposing how dangerous it appears to be. The mere fact that something could happen does not create an elevated level of danger, because the reality is that something fatal could happen in hundreds of nursing venues; infection from a needle-stick to assault by a patient or co-worker.
Bottom line; I worked as a manager in a flight service, and more of my employees were involved in accidents traveling too and from work than were involved in accidents while at work (which would be ZERO...unless we count the time they wrecked one of the company cars or were involved in an accident in the ambulance).
For that reason, factually so, the most dangerous part of being a flight nurse is the drive to and from work.
What is so inaccurate about my statement?
- 0Dec 4, '06 by npingeorgiahi,
Just wanted to agree with the Army pilot that stated that if you fly long enough eventually something will happen. Look at it like this ,statistics can and will work against you at some point. I flew as a flight nurse for 4 years and flew with some of the most experienced pilots in the field. You can't imagine the situations that you may have to face that no amount of training would have ever prepared you for. As a flight nurse you are first and foremost a crew member and then a nurse. It's interesting that you point out that the company that you worked for has never had a mechanical failure that resulted in an injury, is that because of the crew that was on board and their fast actions to correct a problem or a pilot that was able to land quickly and safely or any number of other things that just happened to have gone right at the time and not result in an injury? My motto as a flight nurse is "Live to fly another day". Things can and will happen.
Good luck in your search for a job.
check out airmethods web site.
- 0Dec 4, '06 by npingeorgiaAlso after reading all the threads posted here I wanted to add this piece of food for thought. I have been a nurse for 15 years,ER and flight combined. I would like for all of those folks reading this that may have an interest in flight nursing to know that I have never been involved in a preshift safety briefing while working in the ER, but as a flight nurse it was done with the am pilot and again with the pm pilot. I did not make sure my last will and testament was done until I was instructed to do so by the company I worked for as a flight nurse, never has a hospital suggested that this be done. I am never worried about updating my coordinates with my charge nurse in the ER but I would love to be found on a cold night if I happen to be out in the middle of nowhere while working as a flight nurse. Oh yea, I always make sure I have an updated survival kit on board when I do daily check offs, in the ER we are worried about what we are ordering for dinner. I would think all of these things are in place because there is an inherent danger to being a flight nurse, or atleast being a part of a flight crew. Also, as far as the insurance thing goes, my life insurance would not pay off to my family if I were to die as part of a flight crew, killed in the ER?? oh yea paid fully.
- 0Dec 5, '06 by 58flyerQuote from Shamira AizzaYou have already provided the answer for us. In the Slack & Davis article you linked earlier: 55 EMS aircraft accidents- 41 were helicopter and 14 were airplane. 39 fatalities/13 serious injuries among the 16 fatal helo accidents. 15 fatalities/6 serious injuries among the 5 fatal airplane accidents.What I disagree with is your blanket statement saying "flying is a dangerous business" in the context of being a flight nurse. I'm suspecting that you believe this simply because if something goes wrong, someone could get killed. I view this claim academically and subjectively, meaning, statistically the activity should actually reflect how dangerous it is instead of subjectively supposing how dangerous it appears to be. The mere fact that something could happen does not create an elevated level of danger, because the reality is that something fatal could happen in hundreds of nursing venues; infection from a needle-stick to assault by a patient or co-worker.
Obviously, the 2 dual rated pilots on this thread are not going to convince you that there is an elevated danger of flying helicopters versus fixed wing.
Most anything you do has a certain element of danger to it, starting with getting out of bed in the morning. Just how much danger an activity has to have in order to be labeled "dangerous" is subjective.
In aviation we manage the danger in a number of ways: Proper training, recurrency training, refresher training, train, train, train. Then there's maintenance and inspection of the aircraft itself. Pre and post flight inspection. Maintenance of equipment. Time/cycle life of components. Attention to weather and Notams. Flight helmets and Nomex suits. Flotation gear. Instrument competency. FARs and AIM. Professional associations and safety seminars. Safe refueling procedures. Crew rest requirements. Just to name a few, you could add a lot more to this list.
We do this because we recognize the dangers associated with flying. We learn from the mistakes and experiences of those who paid the ultimate price. And those of us who fly helicopters know that the greater complexity of the machine elevates the recognized danger to a higher level. Therefore, we take the appropriate precautions. That is so recognized danger doesn't become an actual danger.
My point, since I have to spell it out, flying does have a certain element of danger and risk, helicopters all the more so. But proper management of the risks and dangers reduces the risks and dangers to an acceptable level.
- 0Dec 6, '06 by Shamira AizzaQuote from 58flyerSigh.
Obviously, the 2 dual rated pilots on this thread are not going to convince you that there is an elevated danger of flying helicopters versus fixed wing.
It's because they don't need to. How many times do I have to say that I don't disagree with that. I never have disagreed with that. It never was the isssue I initially addressed? So why do folks keep going back to that? Maybe I should simply start pounding on an element of this discussion on which we both agree as if you didn't agree with me...would that make any sense to you?
Is anyone paying attention?
In the other posts, the comparisons are simply convoluted. The fact that you don't have to conduct a safety briefing or provide routine coordinates during an ER shift does not somehow make the job 'more safe.' It's a different environment with a different set of concerns and functions. In comparison, there has never been a police standoff with hostages on an EMS aircraft, and you don't have to hire armed security guards to accompany you on the aircraft...it's because the safety environment is different, requiring different methods. It's not because one environment is more dangerous than the other. Life insurance comparisons and the difference in payoff also have nothing to do with it; I would like you to challenge your insurance company to show you any statistical reason why they cannot justify a payoff if you would die while working as a flight nurse. They are a business willing to capitalize on stereotypes such as the ones suggested in this thread, and to use those stereotypes to improve their profits. They don't look for reasons to pay, they look for reasons to keep their money, and they are not objective philanthropic agencies...they are businesses with more concern for the expectations of shareholders than premium-holders.
And saying that something will happen if you fly long enough does not add any merit of credibility whatsoever to any position. There are thousands of activities we can engage in that will result in an unfortunate outcome if we simply do them long enough. Bad outcomes can come of what seem completely benign activities; for example, going to Disney would never be labeled as a dangerous activity, but over a dozen people have died, some as a result of malfunctions, and some simply because of an inability to tolerate the activity. Does that make it dangerous because something fatal could happen if one simply waits long enough for it to happen? Keep in mind that the number one audience of Disney is our children...doesn't make sense at all.
You do not "manage" danger. "Recognized danger?" There is no difference between recognized danger and actual danger. Additionally, statistics do not "work against" anyone, because they are not capable of prejudice or any kind of dynamic activity. They are static elements which simply display facts, and the facts do not show that working as a flight nurse is more dangerous than delivering pizza or filling candy machines.
Hey, look, if you want to say that working as a flight nurse is dangerous, feel free to do so. I'm sure it brings a bit of "ooh-aaah" to the dinner discussion and some self-gratification, maybe even pride. However, I believe you are obligated to show data to support your claim, otherwise you are only being subjective and attempting to display flight nursing in a manner that is based exclusively on drama and appearance, not facts.
The fact is that it's simply disingenius to make the blanket comment that working as a flight nurse is "dangerous" based on impression and stereotype...the "most dangerous jobs" in the world are not chosen based on assumption, but on NUMBERS and FACTS, and that is the same benchmark that should be used to qualify nursing as a dangerous, and that is one thing that no-one has brought to support their claim. The word 'dangerous' has a definition, and flight nursing as an activity does not fit the definition (i.e. unsafe, perilous, likely to cause harm).
BTW, thanks to whoever wished me a successful job search. I don't know where that came from, but I have a job. I left aviation after a good SAFE run of 7 years.
- 0Dec 6, '06 by npingeorgiaOh, the wish for a successful job hunt goes out to the person that started this thread, the first post, they were looking for a way to find available jobs within the air medical industry. You,shamirra aizza, turned this thread in to a discussion that quickly got off the mark. Also read the fine print of your insurance policies regarding your participation as a flight crew member, my insurance did not make this up when I asked about it, it was in the fine print. I know from personal experience that losing a flight crew to a crash is an experience that forever changed my life. So you'll never change my mind that there are inherent risks to being a flight nurse. I suppose we will agree to disagree.