If cost that much of an issue, a paraglider costs 1/10th as much and are likely much safer to operate. Or if getting a single person on site is all you need, tiny helicopters cost as low as 50k new.
When that happens, it seems to be because the location (bottom of cliff) has extensive bush covering around it.
That being said, I know nothing at all about any of the above cases. There may have been bad weather involved too, which would probably also be a problem for a jet pack solution.
Try to imagine a world where helicopters work in some rescue situations, but not so well in others.
Tight areas... maybe. But if the tree canopy is too tight, I don't see how a dude with a jetpack is truly going to navigate that efficiently. They'll just find a near by clearing to land and hoof over... which, the same can be said of someone in a copter. Though, the one from the copter can ruck 70+ pounds of life saving medical equipment because they're not carrying jetpack equipment.
Forest Fires? I mean, what advantage do they have to smokejumpers? All that extra jetpack gear means less firefighting gear on them.
Look, it's cool. It's awesome. I also want to be the first person to get a DUI in a jetpack. But for the price of a cheap helicopter and going to a scenario such as a fell (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fell)... a less complex helicopter that can ACTUALLY carry gear seems like the smarter investment for a search/rescue department.
Odds are that they would have been right - early helicopters probably weren't safe enough to use as ambulances.
Well-run modern air ambulances are very safe edit: perhaps not, see replies (twin-engine helicopters with very experienced pilots) and can serve hundreds of patients per year, generally only serving very urgent cases of course. [0]
My question for the jet-pack folks is why not use a helicopter? Presumably the suit is a great deal cheaper, but are there any other advantages? Curiously the article doesn't mention helicopters at all, but in the video, they did their interview in front of one.
[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/London%27s_Air_Ambulance_Chari...
His comment: "We are ready to take risks. That is part of our work, just like cops' or soldiers'. Some missions are extra risky - industrial accidents or anything involved drugged or drunk people. We still take that risk."
IDK what the hazards of a first generation jetpack are, but odds are he would try it out eagerly.
I'm not sure if those figures are true globally or just for the US.
[0] https://www.flyingmag.com/aircraft/helicopters/air-ambulance...
I dropped my friend a line and he answered back with a detailed description of his helo accident. It was one helluva freakish story.
They loaded an older lady in a hilly, wooded area not quite close to Ostrava (the largest city in the region, my birthplace). She had symptoms of a serious stroke, it was 1998, no one really expected her to live long, but not that short either.
A few minutes into the flight something (a nut?) exploded in the rotor and they went down like a stone. Very, very hard crash, still in a hilly, wooded area, but close to a big water reservoir, an artificial lake.
The lady died on impact. All other people on board survived with serious injuries, but they were saved by an unbelievable coincidence. A mine rescue team from Ostrava had a regular training on the lake and the helicopter crashed in their sight, less than a kilometer away. So they were there in like 3 minutes, dragged them to safety and put the burning wreck out.
If this was a movie, it would look totally unrealistic. But it happened.
Three months of rehabilitation and friend's lower back is still bad. He cannot stand completely upright, tilts slightly to a side.
Here's the best explanation I know of: https://youtu.be/jDg1G2y8ZX4?t=293
(As far as I can tell no-one has made an animation of what happens.)
Good point, went down like a stone is unlikely to be true.
> a type of rotor system that wouldn't typically be used in an air ambulance setting
Sure, I didn't phrase my comment very well, hadn't meant to imply otherwise.
Mentioned elsewhere in this thread:
Having volunteered as a first responder in the White Mountains of New England and with a few friends who dealt with mountain rescues, particularly winter mountain rescues, I strongly disagree with you. There are plenty of places where there are significant numbers of people hiking/climbing/skiing/snowboarding, a vertical range of <6000', horizontal distance of just a mile or two, and yet it can easily take hours from the nearest road/building to reach someone on foot (with no vehicle travel possible and even helicopters often infeasible plus based from quite a distance away). While something like this could turn that into minutes. And going by foot, as well as extracting people, isn't without significant risk too many times of the year (particularly if you're trying to move quickly).
Yes, no doubt this will need significant refinement (just like helicopters). There may be much better possible designs, as well as numerous improvements to be made in terms of auto control. Heck, rather then suits maybe one of those flying platforms or a big drone someone can hang from make more sense. But the idea of getting a few rescuers with some basic kit to an accident high up on a mountain in a matter of minutes with the ability to do an aerial survey/search as they come in? There is nothing gimmicky about it. Minutes let alone hours save people.
>I thought the number one rule for First Responders was not to cause injury (on the scene or en-route) to yourself or bystanders and not to cause further injury to the casualty.
Wilderness rescue is inherently risky, but for that matter so is medical work in general. The goal is certainly to have a large net improvement in overall wellness, so they don't want people, particularly not First Responders which means relatively little training, rush into dangerous situations and cause more trouble for everyone. But somebody using something like this, or doing wilderness rescue at all, is going to be trained beyond that level. And intelligent weighing of risks based on level of training and equipment is core to the entire mission.
>Then I suppose we will be expected to all feel sorry and cry for the terrible loss of this heroic first responder ... despite the idiotic risks they took.
Get the hell over yourself. Holy crap.
I hope with improvement in ML it might become safer. Certainly an easier problem to solve than self driving cars.
I bet it's anything but cheap.
I thought the number one rule for First Responders was not to cause injury (on the scene or en-route) to yourself or bystanders and not to cause further injury to the casualty.
A "paramedic jet suit" just seems to be waiting for an opportunity for the paramedic to become a statistic as they fly head-first into rocky substance. Then I suppose we will be expected to all feel sorry and cry for the terrible loss of this heroic first responder ... despite the idiotic risks they took.