# Medical Evac helicopters



## FormerHorseGuard (12 May 2021)

I think I know the answer but I could be wrong.
I was watching a video of Facebook of the exercise in Wainwright going on. It showed a US Army Blackhawk with the Red Cross markings on it.
I have never seen Canadian Forces Helicopter with Red Cross markings,  does the CF have dedicated helicopters for Medical Evac flights or do we use whatever helicopter is avaialable?


----------



## CBH99 (12 May 2021)

Good question. Hoping Loachman, Max, Dimsum, EITS, etc -  one of our RCAF residents can answer conclusively.  

We DID deploy 3 specialized Chinooks to Mali that were dedicated and equipped for MEDEVAC.  So we have the capability.  

Obviously the Cormorant, but I think your referring to TACHEL.  

But I’ll shush up for a conclusive answer.  I don’t think there are dedicated TACHEL helos for medevac


----------



## SeaKingTacco (12 May 2021)

FormerHorseGuard said:


> I think I know the answer but I could be wrong.
> I was watching a video of Facebook of the exercise in Wainwright going on. It showed a US Army Blackhawk with the Red Cross markings on it.
> I have never seen Canadian Forces Helicopter with Red Cross markings,  does the CF have dedicated helicopters for Medical Evac flights or do we use whatever helicopter is avaialable?


The CAF does not have dedicated tactical air evac aviation, no.


----------



## MilEME09 (12 May 2021)

SeaKingTacco said:


> The CAF does not have dedicated tactical air evac aviation, no.


Out of curiosity how long does it take to convert a Griffon or chinook for air evac? If it is a relatively quick change it is pretty easy to argue we may not need dedicated medevac


----------



## ModlrMike (12 May 2021)

The US also has fully resourced field medical units, where we have atts and dets.


----------



## Good2Golf (12 May 2021)

MilEME09 said:


> Out of curiosity how long does it take to convert a Griffon or chinook for air evac? If it is a relatively quick change it is pretty easy to argue we may not need dedicated medevac


Depends on the level of service.  For CASEVAC, without dedicated medical staff, both aircraft are rigged with basic stretcher(s) and a pre-planned cabin configuration to take one (Griffon) and several (Chinook) wounded personnel (they would not be 'patients' for CASEVAC).  For Forward AME (forward aeromedical evacuation), the aircraft would be specifically prepared 'on the day of' for those missions with additional medical equipment on board to support dedicated medical personnel.  Not sure if its accurate, but I think of this as similar (+/-) to an ambulance and paramedics.  The highest level of medical support provided to date by RCAF aviation was the MERT (medical emergency resuscitation team, including one or more medical officers/physician, a critical care nurse and multiple medics, capable of airborne 'Role 1' level combat surgical intervention) supported by the Chinooks in Mali.  A MERT configuration and equipment load out was developed in the months prior to the deployment, and once in theatre, a clean Chinook could be fairly quickly (several hours) kitted out to full MERT configuration prior to dedicated MERT missions and/or standby.

Here's a good video regarding the MERT capability on the Canadian Chinooks in Mali. OP PRESENCE - MALI CMERT

Regards
G2G


----------



## mariomike (12 May 2021)

FormerHorseGuard said:


> ,  does the CF have dedicated helicopters for Medical Evac flights or do we use whatever helicopter is avaialable?


For reference to the discussion,



> Do's Canada have air medical evacuation crews?











						Medevac
					

Hello, I apologize if this question has already been answered. Do's Canada have air medical evacuation crews? and if so which occupation handles this ( medtech , SAR ext)  Thank you for your time.cheers :cdn:




					army.ca
				



2 pages.


----------



## FormerHorseGuard (12 May 2021)

mariomike said:


> For reference to the discussion,
> 
> 
> 
> ...


I should of worded my question better,  Medical Evac froma combat zone. I know of the SAR helicopters, and such. But never saw a green helicopter with red cross markings. Wondered if we had them or not. I knew the 412 fleet was smaller now, and the chinnoks are an even smaller fleet. So I was curious, things change over time and it has been 27 years for me since I last rode in a green chopper,  the Kiwoas out of Downsview with 400 Sqn.  So I asked, thanks for the answers


----------



## SeaKingTacco (12 May 2021)

Good2Golf said:


> Depends on the level of service.  For CASEVAC, without dedicated medical staff, both aircraft are rigged with basic stretcher(s) and a pre-planned cabin configuration to take one (Griffon) and several (Chinook) wounded personnel (they would not be 'patients' for CASEVAC).  For Forward AME (forward aeromedical evacuation), the aircraft would be specifically prepared 'on the day of' for those missions with additional medical equipment on board to support dedicated medical personnel.  Not sure if its accurate, but I think of this as similar (+/-) to an ambulance and paramedics.  The highest level of medical support provided to date by RCAF aviation was the MERT (medical emergency resuscitation team, including one or more medical officers/physician, a critical care nurse and multiple medics, capable of airborne 'Role 1' level combat surgical intervention) supported by the Chinooks in Mali.  A MERT configuration and equipment load out was developed in the months prior to the deployment, and once in theatre, a clean Chinook could be fairly quickly (several hours) kitted out to full MERT configuration prior to dedicated MERT missions and/or standby.
> 
> Here's a good video regarding the MERT capability on the Canadian Chinooks in Mali. OP PRESENCE - MALI CMERT
> 
> ...


I have casevac’d numerous folks ashore in Sea King. Everything from amputations to head injuries to disease. There is (was) no special configuration. Stokes litter and a medic and away you go!


----------



## mariomike (12 May 2021)

FormerHorseGuard said:


> I should of worded my question better,  Medical Evac froma combat zone.


Armymedic put it this way back in 2016,



> We do strategic MEDEVAC, and tactical CASEVAC. Everything else is done the CAF way, ad hoc.


----------



## RubberTree (12 May 2021)

426 Squadron does run (usually) 3 serials a year of the Forward Aeromedical Evacuation course out of both Edmonton and Valcartier. The course is for Med Techs only and uses the Griffon. It is not a winged course but does grant a qual code. It is considered a tactical level operation. 
CMERT (Canadian medical Emergency RESPONSE Team, the MERT team is a UK asset) is also considered a Tactical Evacuation as the flight originates and terminates within the AOR.


----------



## RedFive (13 May 2021)

I was, years ago, on an exercise where 408 Squadron showed up to give us Reservists a taste of TACHEL, part of which was loading a casualty into the CH-146 then going for a ride.

I am in no way, shape or form an expert, but I recall that the Griffon was poorly suited to getting the stretcher on with anything resembling ease, but I also remember the "mount" for the stretcher seeming like it could stack stretchers on one or both sides. I would be happy to be corrected or clarified by those in the know.

Again, this was years ago, a very brief introduction and then a flight that nearly cost me my lunch much to the glee of the door gunner and flight engineer (crew chief?) that were in the back with us.


----------



## RubberTree (13 May 2021)

1 stretcher can be loaded crosswise in the Griffon using cargo straps or similar. Alternatively, there is a stanchion system that allows 3 patients to be stacked in a forward/aft orientation on the side of the helicopter but it can only be used on one side at a time as it blocks access through that door. To load three weighted litters is difficult though due to the vertical distance between the litters. In training, I have only ever seen one.


----------



## Loachman (13 May 2021)

Every Tac Hel (not "TACHEL" rhymes with "satchel") Griffon flies with a half-litter kit to provide the ability to stack three litters on the left-hand side.

Yes, they are awkward to stack, and much more awkward for the FE to slither underneath and kick the litter braces into the locked position when the troops have not properly done so before loading the litter aboard.


----------



## Good2Golf (13 May 2021)

RedFive said:


> I was, years ago, on an exercise where 408 Squadron showed up to give us Reservists a taste of TACHEL, part of which was loading a casualty into the CH-146 then going for a ride.
> 
> I am in no way, shape or form an expert, but I recall that the Griffon was poorly suited to getting the stretcher on with anything resembling ease, but I also remember the "mount" for the stretcher seeming like it could stack stretchers on one or both sides. I would be happy to be corrected or clarified by those in the know.
> 
> Again, this was years ago, a very brief introduction and then a flight that nearly cost me my lunch much to the glee of the door gunner and flight engineer (crew chief?) that were in the back with us.


R5, the Twin Huey wasn’t any better with the litter kit. 😉 Neither had/have the cross-cabin width that a Black Hawk has, for example, so a single cross cabin litter was/is ‘non optimal.’  

Regards


----------



## Loachman (13 May 2021)

Three stacked along the left-hand side isn't, either.

Best not to be shot, blown up, run over etcetera in the first place, especially if Pedros are not around.

Those guys are brilliant.

There's an excellent National Geographic DVD set about their KAF-based operation.

And I'm pretty sure that I've seen three litters stacked across a Griffon, just for entertainment purposes.


----------



## Loachman (13 May 2021)

Oh, and and speaking of non-optimal - a float-equipped Kiowa crew lifted a civ guy who'd fallen from the top of the Barron River Gorge to the the rocks below (300 feet, if I remember) while rappelling with an Airborne buddy in the early eighties. He was lashed to the left-hand float by a couple of his companions swimming beside it, as the right-hand one was pressed up against the rocks. The float-equipped Slug had a leaking float, so it sat waiting in a clearing at the top to transfer him when he arrived there after a long and slow climb out - the Kiowa was well overweight and way out of balance and both Pilot and Observer were leaning as far to the right as they could. I was orbitting above in another Kiowa to monitor and relay communications.

The guy was severely smashed up, but was not pronounced dead (which he most obviously was) until met by the civ ambulance as there was some restriction against us flying dead bodies.


----------



## Blackadder1916 (13 May 2021)

Good2Golf said:


> R5, the Twin Huey wasn’t any better with the litter kit. 😉 Neither had/have the cross-cabin width that a Black Hawk has, for example, so a single cross cabin litter was/is ‘non optimal.’
> 
> Regards



Neither configuration was optimal, but at least with cross cabin loading one had better access to provide in-flight care.  Though, to be honest, if more than one litter in the a/c, that care was mostly limited to just observation and hoping any IV lines stayed open.




			https://www.brooksidepress.org/Products/OperationalMedicine/DATA/operationalmed/Transportation/Aircraft/TheIroquois.htm


----------



## Loachman (18 May 2021)

That configuration takes up the FE's seat.

The only cross-cabin configuration that I've seen was across the front, right behind the Pilots.

Vietnam practice was just litters on the floor after kicking out ammunition, rats, and water - speed and simplicity.


----------



## OldSolduer (18 May 2021)

I did love the Twin Huey almost as much as I love Chinooks. Just sayin.....


----------



## Good2Golf (18 May 2021)

OldSolduer said:


> I did love the Twin Huey almost as much as I love Chinooks. Just sayin.....


Twin Hueys definitely had the nostalgia factor, but the Griffon is a better UH-1 class machine on the whole.   Hooks (C, D or ‘F’) of course, rock.  Honorable mention to the Kiowa for most fun, especially doors off.


----------



## brihard (18 May 2021)

FormerHorseGuard said:


> I should of worded my question better,  Medical Evac froma combat zone. I know of the SAR helicopters, and such. But never saw a green helicopter with red cross markings. Wondered if we had them or not. I knew the 412 fleet was smaller now, and the chinnoks are an even smaller fleet. So I was curious, things change over time and it has been 27 years for me since I last rode in a green chopper,  the Kiwoas out of Downsview with 400 Sqn.  So I asked, thanks for the answers



You can either have Red Cross markings, which afford certain protections under international law, or you can mount crew served weapons. Given the areas of operation that Canada has deployed into, I think the ability to shoot bad guys in the face affords the greater return on investment. Medics can carry individual small arms for their own defense and not forfeit protections. The exact point at which that line is crossed is fuzzy in international law, but Canada’s practice is to avoid mix ups between fighting vehicles and medical emblems. In Afghanistan our Bison ambulances mounted C6s and were not distinguishable from other vehicles.



Loachman said:


> Three stacked along the left-hand side isn't, either.
> 
> Best not to be shot, blown up, run over etcetera in the first place, especially if Pedros are not around.
> 
> ...



Not sure if true but I heard a tale of the Pedros ‘kidnapping’ one of our troops in Kandahar circa 2010. Story I heard was an IED his a dismounted patrol and blew some guy ass over tea kettle into a wadi. He was fine, but before he had the chance to collect his thoughts and get back up, a Pedro callsign that was overhead and saw the whole thing ripped in fast, scooped him, and dusted off before the platoon on the ground had really had a chance to assess anything.

Likely an exaggerated story, but amusing and plausible. They’re awesome.


----------



## Loachman (18 May 2021)

brihard said:


> They’re awesome.



Yes. Absolutely. Extreme professionals.

The US Army medevac unit rotated part-way through my second tour. They seemed pretty good. Their replacements seemed to do their job alright, but were extremely lousy with communications back to us in the TFK J3 Avn cell so we never knew when they had launched, arrived, or returned (and to the right places) without constantly nagging them.

They flew the cas in an unarmed Black Hawk with red crosses escorted by an Apache.

Pedros had no extra markings except for black moustaches on their noses and provided their own escort between the two GAU-21-armed Pave Hawks. Their primary mission was Combat SAR.

Look for that National Geographic DVD set. It's worth it.

There is no room for cas, Med Tech, and equipment in an armed Griffon. It's too small, and lacks the power to take off in an enemy-infested environment.

And red crosses don't impress many of the people that we are likely to fight.


----------

