20 ms·

Great North Air Ambulance trials paramedic jet suit

78 points by timthorn 6y ago

traceroute66 6y ago
Seems to me like little more than a cheap publicity stunt for fundraising. 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.
- rtx 6y ago
  Yes, today. I hope with improvement in ML it might become safer. Certainly an easier problem to solve than self driving cars.
- Neil44 6y ago
  Scrambling to reach someone over difficult terrain also carries risk to life. As does being unable to reach patients for 90 minutes whatever the emergency.
  - Retric 6y ago
    Helicopters can reach people in this location just fine in a reasonable time, and more importantly bring people back. Limiting your comparison to a 400,000+$ experimental jet suit vs walking is deceptive. 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.
    - wil421 6y ago
      A medivac out of the Grand Canyon can cost $15k. If you could use a $400k jet pack to stabilize someone until a ground crew gets there it could be a win for everyone.
      - zizee 6y ago
        How much would it cost to helecopter a medic in to stabilize someone until a ground crew gets there?
      - Retric 6y ago
        Multi million dollar helicopters large enough to remove people from the grand cannon plus a crew cost 15k per flight. A single person helicopter’s cost as low as 50k brand new and thus less per flight than this thing.
    - itsoktocry 6y ago
      >Helicopters can reach people just fine in a reasonable time Try to imagine a world where helicopters work in some rescue situations, but not so well in others.
      - Retric 6y ago
        Clarified, as reach people in this area just fine. It might be interesting to look at this kind of jet suit for rock climbers, but this specific design doesn’t seem capable of that.
      - NoOneNew 6y ago
        Rain? High winds? I doubt a 250 pound dude in a jetpack is going to fair any better than 15,000 pound copter. 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 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.
        Neil44 6y ago
        Chopper needs a very large clear not sloping area to land in, jet man not so.
        Retric 6y ago
        15,000 lb is a large helicopter which can winch people down and up. It’s the single man sub 1,500 lb helicopters that would need to land.
    - justinclift 6y ago
      There are plenty of cases here in Australia, including recently, where people have fallen off a cliff and can't be reached by rescuers for hours or perhaps until the next day. 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.
      - Retric 6y ago
        The geography of the area is such that a person can walk to these people in 90 minutes. A jet suit with a slightly different design might be a meaningfully better option for rescuing people climbing el capitan or the bottom of ravines, but that’s not what is being considered here.
- arethuza 6y ago
  That was my first impression as well - but I suspect people probably said the same thing the first time they saw a helicopter!
  - MaxBarraclough 6y ago
    > I suspect people probably said the same thing the first time they saw a helicopter! 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_Charity#Missions_and_major_incidents https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/London%27s_Air_Ambulance_Chari...
    - ColinWright 6y ago
      > ... why not use a helicopter? Mentioned elsewhere in this thread: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=24626472 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=24626472
    - nradov 6y ago
      The first really widespread use of early helicopters in any capacity was as air ambulances for the US military during the Korean War.
      - MaxBarraclough 6y ago
        The risk profile is rather different in wartime. I presume those aircraft were a good deal less safe than modern ones, but I could be mistaken.
    - inglor_cz 6y ago
      A friend of mine has been an emergency doctor since 1990. A helicopter crashed with him on board once, killing the patient and causing him injuries that still can be seen after twenty years. 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.
- ComodoHacker 6y ago
  >a cheap publicity stunt I bet it's anything but cheap.
- xoa 6y ago
  >Seems to me like little more than a cheap publicity stunt for fundraising. 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.
  - treetoppin 6y ago
    I'm curious, in your experience what is the delay between: knowing there's a need for a response - knowing where the individual is - getting someone on scene? I'm not familiar with mtn rescue so I'm not sure how long it takes vertical surface teams to get into place once the survivor has been located. I'm sure there are times where a vertical surface rescue will be required, but it takes a long time for the team to get positioned. In a situation like that, is it a significant gain to get a medic to that person even if it will be hours before they can get extracted?
mehrdadn 6y ago
This looks awesome. How does it compare to a helicopter though? Are helicopters not available for these situations?
- ed_elliott_asc 6y ago
  It doesn’t mention pricing but I would imagine these would be significantly cheaper than a helicopter. If each mountain rescue team could have their own then that would really help.
  - mehrdadn 6y ago
    I think right now they're like $440,000 [1] which is comparable with cheap helicopters (if not more expensive), but far lower than the average helicopter. [1] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EAJM5L9hhBs&t=6m14s https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EAJM5L9hhBs&t=6m14s
- microcolonel 6y ago
  They go over that. The idea is that the air ambulance can't necessarily land that close to the patient, the jetsuit can allow the medic to cover severe terrain rapidly between the helicopter and the patient; ditto for terrestrial ambulances trying to reach patients over difficult terrain.
  - mehrdadn 6y ago
    Thanks for the info, makes sense! Can I ask where they go over this? I've already read the article and watched the video multiple times but somehow I'm still not seeing where they discuss this.
  - nradov 6y ago
    Helicopters don't necessarily have to land either. They already have the capability to lower a medic and litter using a winch while hovering.
    - 6y ago
unwind 6y ago
Like other commenters, I agree that this is roughly equal parts awesome (because flying suits are awesome, and also because rapid response from medical professionals in the field is too), equal parts silly/gimmicky/unlikely. Also, why is the BBC feeling a need to put quotes around "fly" in the article? If a person is, like, lifting off from the ground, and moving through the air in a controlled fashion driven by jet engines, isn't that pretty exactly flying, without quotes?
- SideburnsOfDoom 6y ago
  > If a person is, like, lifting off from the ground, and moving through the air in a controlled fashion driven by jet engines, isn't that pretty exactly flying? It depends, are they reaching a height where the Wing-in-ground effect is negligible? If they have to stay below that, then no, not really flying. Unless you'd say that a hovercraft or ekranoplan also flies. Or they could just be staying low because it might be insanely dangerous if the operator loses control at even slight altitude.
  - dogma1138 6y ago
    A hovercraft doesn’t fly not because the wing in ground effect but because it doesn’t have 6 degrees of freedom which constitutes flying. A sub or a torpedo can fly through the water just like an airplane or a missile do through air.
    - SideburnsOfDoom 6y ago
      Does an ekranoplan "fly" then ?
      - dogma1138 6y ago
        Can it move in 6 degrees of freedom?
        SideburnsOfDoom 6y ago
AndrewLiptak 6y ago
I've seen Richard Browning fly this in person — he did a demo a couple of years ago at San Diego Comic-Con. It's unreal to watch, but it's definitely something I can see not being all that widespread: it takes a lot of training to acclimate to it. Browning's been doing a bunch of demos lately: it feels like they're trying to figure out the best use, whether that's military applications, rescue, or others. This isn't the first rescue demo, although this one looks like it's a bit more useful than the other one (which was disaster response, and which very much looked like a publicity stunt.)
- SideburnsOfDoom 6y ago
  > I've seen Richard Browning fly this in person — he did a demo > Browning's been doing a bunch of demos lately How many other people have been trained to fly this thing? It's telling if it's no-one, that would mean that it's likely prohibitive to insure the danger.
  - pen2l 6y ago
    Yeah interesting you bring that up. I remember being introduced to this Browning by this video: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EAJM5L9hhBs https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EAJM5L9hhBs And you notice something interesting in the beginning... this guy is in GOOD shape. Like not just good, we're talking REALLY good, he's in the 0.1percentile, being able to do some pretty difficult callisthenic moves (go to 1:00 in the video to see him doing handstand pushups and flags, these can take years to learn for the common person). And I think it's one of the reasons he made the suit work... because I can't imagine someone NOT being that fit arriving to a working design, given the iterations it required to get everything right in the beginning. However, I think we can now arrive to a design for the common man thanks to him having iterated through these first versions.
    - me_me_me 6y ago
      it seems most trust is in arms? Correct me if i am wrong. If so this is equivalent to hanging off a bar (the forces are in opposite direction though). That is certainly not an easy to maintain for long. If one arm gets tired and you cant land you are in big trouble. Also a strong wind gust might be outright deadly.
civilaircraft 6y ago
As other commenters pointed out, this looks like a total publicity stunt. Surely it would be safer and more practical to use drones to deliver equipment/supplies with remote medical specialists advising the patient themselves or those nearby to assist (somebody would have had to be in a position to call for assistance to begin with so there is most likely a conscious person around). Obviously not ideal, but in conjuction with standard on the ground responders I would imagine this would be a much better way to address the time urgency requirement.
NoOneNew 6y ago
So... how is this better than a rescue helicopter with a basket (like the US Coast Guard)? Helicopter in an EMT to go down with the basket, stabilize the victim, place victim in the basket, retract, fly away (yes, I know, there's more to it). With this setup up, fly in with super limited resources and stabilize the victim to wait for a helicopter for exfil? Super rapid response, maybe, but search/rescue is also pretty limited in manpower, not just equipment... and limited on money. Unless you have extra staging locations peppered throughout, all these jetpackers are probably going to be based with the rescue birds anyways, which defeats the purpose. Plus, imagine the cost for the extra training, keeping up with certs, quals, maintenance, and oh dear God... the insurance costs... for a severely neutered helicopter. Probably best to spend the cash on an extra bird to fan out coverage. I'm smelling solutionism... It's kind of like that boat "take over" gimmick without a weapon in hand. The enemy force will literally just yell out how many points they're racking up when shooting at a bunch of guys in jetpacks with their hands occupied in not-weaponry. Afterwards, they'll agree not to kill hostages as long as more jetpack guys are sent in for target practice. That whole PR stunt was a complete joke. Damn, when I was a kid, jetpacks were the coolest idea ever. As they become more of a reality, they're so useless other than for fun.
- alexwasserman 6y ago
  Looks like the mountain equivalent of fast-response motorbike EMTs - https://www.jems.com/2018/02/19/motorcycle-response-units-in-ems/ https://www.jems.com/2018/02/19/motorcycle-response-units-in... Even helicopters can take a while to get on station, and typically come from much further away. While I agree this looks gimmicky, I wonder if they can station many more jetpacks (much cheaper than a helicopter) much closer (ie. every mountain rescue station has one) than a helicopter. The survival likelihood for EMT callouts drops really quickly as time progresses, so getting there quickly for initial triage and stabilization is more important than getting complex equipment there. They could stabilize and then radio for either a 4x4 or helicopter, using resources appropriate to the situation. The UK is tiny compared to the US, and 'mountain rescue' is very different compared to the US as well.
  - throw0101a 6y ago
treetoppin 6y ago
Pretty cool usage scenario, since everyone can imagine a flying hero coming in to save the day. That being said, this feels like a solution looking for a problem. I am sure there are specific areas of responsibility that would benefit from a rapidly deployable single medic carrying a small triage kit with no patient return capability, but they are probably few and far between (especially when you factor in the above need with the capability to purchase, train crew, and maintain such a capability). As a pilot of a helicopter whose purpose is search and rescue, this system seems a bit cumbersome. Yes, a helicopter can't land in all terrain types, but it is a pretty well established skill set to have medics lowered to survivors, and to have the capability to hoist and then transport survivors to higher level care. Maintaining this capability is expensive, which is why it is usually limited to public safety organizations, though some operators like Air Zermatt are private. While a jetpack medic might be able to compete with a subset up the capabilities of a hoist capable medevac helicopter, it won't have the range, speed, or full spectrum of services. If you end up needing a helicopter to evacuate the person anyways, you probably didn't gain a whole lot by having a jetpack medic fly out there first. Unless the jetpack bases are highly concentrated and very common in an area, they probably won't have a time advantage when it comes to onscene arrival either.
- elil17 6y ago
  I agree that a jet pack isn’t as useful as a helicopter, but they are way, way cheaper. Medical helicopters cost millions of dollars and require expensive fuel and highly trained pilots. Jetpacks cost $100-300k, use a fraction of the fuel, and can be flown with a sports pilot license (much easier to acquire and maintain).
  - treetoppin 6y ago
    Good points, but remember we can't only compare the initial capital outlay, we have to compare the hourly operating cost. I imagine that it isn't quite as cheap as you think, and we would also need to see sustained operations from these jetpack to know what the hourly flight time cost is. This is amplified if you need 10 to 20 jetpack to cover and area that could be serviced by two helicopters that are being leased under a maintenance contract. As far as the pilot requirements, sure a jetpack might be able to be just a sport pilot, but can they operate in a commercial capablity then? The FAA says no. Also, this probably isn't trivial operations (search and rescue is highly dynamic, especially in mountainous, maritime, urban or poor weather conditions. On paper my flight experience is 500 hours and a commercial license, which isn't that hard to get as a rotary wing pilot. But in actuality it's 500 hours of highly expensive military flying in dangerous environments, to the tune of well over a million dollars of initial training. Just like a commercial EMS operator isn't going to hand the keys to a helicopter to anyone with a commercial rotary license, are you really going to have a jetpack medic be someone with the bare minimum of certification?
simion314 6y ago
I am wondering if you could use this technology to create a hovercraft like vehicle that anybody could drive around, maybe pickup the victim. If the flight altitude and speeds are low a computer could handle all the tricky parts and the driver would just point the direction, in case of problems it would land in a few seconds (maybe this exists already but are not popular)
gwbas1c 6y ago
Where can I buy one? Seriously, I want one! (But it's probably too expensive!)
hermitcrab 6y ago
I love how every piece of new tech from robots, to drones to jet packs is sold as helping disaster relief and first responders. But then is actually actually adopted by the military to kill people.
- Shivetya 6y ago
  I always figured we saw the technology with disaster relief and first responders because of the military development not panning out as expected and companies seeking to recoup investment. we don't see a lot of military programs until long after they have either been shut down or morphed into something new. everything kills, people just need to recognize the simple fact that that government which can provide you with roads, water, health care, and more, has the same power to deprive you and others of the same. the trouble is finding politicians who appeal to your sense of helping others and not in electing them to do unto others.

78 points by timthorn 6y ago

Seems to me like little more than a cheap publicity stunt for fundraising. 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.

rtx 6y ago
Yes, today. I hope with improvement in ML it might become safer. Certainly an easier problem to solve than self driving cars.
Neil44 6y ago
Scrambling to reach someone over difficult terrain also carries risk to life. As does being unable to reach patients for 90 minutes whatever the emergency.
- Retric 6y ago
  Helicopters can reach people in this location just fine in a reasonable time, and more importantly bring people back. Limiting your comparison to a 400,000+$ experimental jet suit vs walking is deceptive. 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.
  - wil421 6y ago
    A medivac out of the Grand Canyon can cost $15k. If you could use a $400k jet pack to stabilize someone until a ground crew gets there it could be a win for everyone.
    - zizee 6y ago
      How much would it cost to helecopter a medic in to stabilize someone until a ground crew gets there?
    - Retric 6y ago
      Multi million dollar helicopters large enough to remove people from the grand cannon plus a crew cost 15k per flight. A single person helicopter’s cost as low as 50k brand new and thus less per flight than this thing.
  - itsoktocry 6y ago
    >Helicopters can reach people just fine in a reasonable time Try to imagine a world where helicopters work in some rescue situations, but not so well in others.
    - Retric 6y ago
      Clarified, as reach people in this area just fine. It might be interesting to look at this kind of jet suit for rock climbers, but this specific design doesn’t seem capable of that.
    - NoOneNew 6y ago
      Rain? High winds? I doubt a 250 pound dude in a jetpack is going to fair any better than 15,000 pound copter. 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 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.
      - Neil44 6y ago
        Chopper needs a very large clear not sloping area to land in, jet man not so.
        Retric 6y ago
        15,000 lb is a large helicopter which can winch people down and up. It’s the single man sub 1,500 lb helicopters that would need to land.
  - justinclift 6y ago
    There are plenty of cases here in Australia, including recently, where people have fallen off a cliff and can't be reached by rescuers for hours or perhaps until the next day. 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.
    - Retric 6y ago
      The geography of the area is such that a person can walk to these people in 90 minutes. A jet suit with a slightly different design might be a meaningfully better option for rescuing people climbing el capitan or the bottom of ravines, but that’s not what is being considered here.
arethuza 6y ago
That was my first impression as well - but I suspect people probably said the same thing the first time they saw a helicopter!
- MaxBarraclough 6y ago
  > I suspect people probably said the same thing the first time they saw a helicopter! 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_Charity#Missions_and_major_incidents https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/London%27s_Air_Ambulance_Chari...
  - ColinWright 6y ago
    > ... why not use a helicopter? Mentioned elsewhere in this thread: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=24626472 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=24626472
  - nradov 6y ago
    The first really widespread use of early helicopters in any capacity was as air ambulances for the US military during the Korean War.
    - MaxBarraclough 6y ago
      The risk profile is rather different in wartime. I presume those aircraft were a good deal less safe than modern ones, but I could be mistaken.
  - inglor_cz 6y ago
    A friend of mine has been an emergency doctor since 1990. A helicopter crashed with him on board once, killing the patient and causing him injuries that still can be seen after twenty years. 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.
ComodoHacker 6y ago
>a cheap publicity stunt I bet it's anything but cheap.
xoa 6y ago
>Seems to me like little more than a cheap publicity stunt for fundraising. 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.
- treetoppin 6y ago
  I'm curious, in your experience what is the delay between: knowing there's a need for a response - knowing where the individual is - getting someone on scene? I'm not familiar with mtn rescue so I'm not sure how long it takes vertical surface teams to get into place once the survivor has been located. I'm sure there are times where a vertical surface rescue will be required, but it takes a long time for the team to get positioned. In a situation like that, is it a significant gain to get a medic to that person even if it will be hours before they can get extracted?

mehrdadn 6y ago

This looks awesome. How does it compare to a helicopter though? Are helicopters not available for these situations?

ed_elliott_asc 6y ago
It doesn’t mention pricing but I would imagine these would be significantly cheaper than a helicopter. If each mountain rescue team could have their own then that would really help.
- mehrdadn 6y ago
  I think right now they're like $440,000 [1] which is comparable with cheap helicopters (if not more expensive), but far lower than the average helicopter. [1] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EAJM5L9hhBs&t=6m14s https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EAJM5L9hhBs&t=6m14s
microcolonel 6y ago
They go over that. The idea is that the air ambulance can't necessarily land that close to the patient, the jetsuit can allow the medic to cover severe terrain rapidly between the helicopter and the patient; ditto for terrestrial ambulances trying to reach patients over difficult terrain.
- mehrdadn 6y ago
  Thanks for the info, makes sense! Can I ask where they go over this? I've already read the article and watched the video multiple times but somehow I'm still not seeing where they discuss this.
- nradov 6y ago
  Helicopters don't necessarily have to land either. They already have the capability to lower a medic and litter using a winch while hovering.
  - 6y ago

unwind 6y ago

Like other commenters, I agree that this is roughly equal parts awesome (because flying suits are awesome, and also because rapid response from medical professionals in the field is too), equal parts silly/gimmicky/unlikely. Also, why is the BBC feeling a need to put quotes around "fly" in the article? If a person is, like, lifting off from the ground, and moving through the air in a controlled fashion driven by jet engines, isn't that pretty exactly flying, without quotes?

SideburnsOfDoom 6y ago
> If a person is, like, lifting off from the ground, and moving through the air in a controlled fashion driven by jet engines, isn't that pretty exactly flying? It depends, are they reaching a height where the Wing-in-ground effect is negligible? If they have to stay below that, then no, not really flying. Unless you'd say that a hovercraft or ekranoplan also flies. Or they could just be staying low because it might be insanely dangerous if the operator loses control at even slight altitude.
- dogma1138 6y ago
  A hovercraft doesn’t fly not because the wing in ground effect but because it doesn’t have 6 degrees of freedom which constitutes flying. A sub or a torpedo can fly through the water just like an airplane or a missile do through air.
  - SideburnsOfDoom 6y ago
    Does an ekranoplan "fly" then ?
    - dogma1138 6y ago
      Can it move in 6 degrees of freedom?
      - SideburnsOfDoom 6y ago

AndrewLiptak 6y ago

I've seen Richard Browning fly this in person — he did a demo a couple of years ago at San Diego Comic-Con. It's unreal to watch, but it's definitely something I can see not being all that widespread: it takes a lot of training to acclimate to it. Browning's been doing a bunch of demos lately: it feels like they're trying to figure out the best use, whether that's military applications, rescue, or others. This isn't the first rescue demo, although this one looks like it's a bit more useful than the other one (which was disaster response, and which very much looked like a publicity stunt.)

SideburnsOfDoom 6y ago
> I've seen Richard Browning fly this in person — he did a demo > Browning's been doing a bunch of demos lately How many other people have been trained to fly this thing? It's telling if it's no-one, that would mean that it's likely prohibitive to insure the danger.
- pen2l 6y ago
  Yeah interesting you bring that up. I remember being introduced to this Browning by this video: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EAJM5L9hhBs https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EAJM5L9hhBs And you notice something interesting in the beginning... this guy is in GOOD shape. Like not just good, we're talking REALLY good, he's in the 0.1percentile, being able to do some pretty difficult callisthenic moves (go to 1:00 in the video to see him doing handstand pushups and flags, these can take years to learn for the common person). And I think it's one of the reasons he made the suit work... because I can't imagine someone NOT being that fit arriving to a working design, given the iterations it required to get everything right in the beginning. However, I think we can now arrive to a design for the common man thanks to him having iterated through these first versions.
  - me_me_me 6y ago
    it seems most trust is in arms? Correct me if i am wrong. If so this is equivalent to hanging off a bar (the forces are in opposite direction though). That is certainly not an easy to maintain for long. If one arm gets tired and you cant land you are in big trouble. Also a strong wind gust might be outright deadly.

civilaircraft 6y ago

As other commenters pointed out, this looks like a total publicity stunt. Surely it would be safer and more practical to use drones to deliver equipment/supplies with remote medical specialists advising the patient themselves or those nearby to assist (somebody would have had to be in a position to call for assistance to begin with so there is most likely a conscious person around). Obviously not ideal, but in conjuction with standard on the ground responders I would imagine this would be a much better way to address the time urgency requirement.

NoOneNew 6y ago

So... how is this better than a rescue helicopter with a basket (like the US Coast Guard)? Helicopter in an EMT to go down with the basket, stabilize the victim, place victim in the basket, retract, fly away (yes, I know, there's more to it). With this setup up, fly in with super limited resources and stabilize the victim to wait for a helicopter for exfil? Super rapid response, maybe, but search/rescue is also pretty limited in manpower, not just equipment... and limited on money. Unless you have extra staging locations peppered throughout, all these jetpackers are probably going to be based with the rescue birds anyways, which defeats the purpose. Plus, imagine the cost for the extra training, keeping up with certs, quals, maintenance, and oh dear God... the insurance costs... for a severely neutered helicopter. Probably best to spend the cash on an extra bird to fan out coverage. I'm smelling solutionism... It's kind of like that boat "take over" gimmick without a weapon in hand. The enemy force will literally just yell out how many points they're racking up when shooting at a bunch of guys in jetpacks with their hands occupied in not-weaponry. Afterwards, they'll agree not to kill hostages as long as more jetpack guys are sent in for target practice. That whole PR stunt was a complete joke. Damn, when I was a kid, jetpacks were the coolest idea ever. As they become more of a reality, they're so useless other than for fun.

alexwasserman 6y ago
Looks like the mountain equivalent of fast-response motorbike EMTs - https://www.jems.com/2018/02/19/motorcycle-response-units-in-ems/ https://www.jems.com/2018/02/19/motorcycle-response-units-in... Even helicopters can take a while to get on station, and typically come from much further away. While I agree this looks gimmicky, I wonder if they can station many more jetpacks (much cheaper than a helicopter) much closer (ie. every mountain rescue station has one) than a helicopter. The survival likelihood for EMT callouts drops really quickly as time progresses, so getting there quickly for initial triage and stabilization is more important than getting complex equipment there. They could stabilize and then radio for either a 4x4 or helicopter, using resources appropriate to the situation. The UK is tiny compared to the US, and 'mountain rescue' is very different compared to the US as well.
- throw0101a 6y ago

treetoppin 6y ago

Pretty cool usage scenario, since everyone can imagine a flying hero coming in to save the day. That being said, this feels like a solution looking for a problem. I am sure there are specific areas of responsibility that would benefit from a rapidly deployable single medic carrying a small triage kit with no patient return capability, but they are probably few and far between (especially when you factor in the above need with the capability to purchase, train crew, and maintain such a capability). As a pilot of a helicopter whose purpose is search and rescue, this system seems a bit cumbersome. Yes, a helicopter can't land in all terrain types, but it is a pretty well established skill set to have medics lowered to survivors, and to have the capability to hoist and then transport survivors to higher level care. Maintaining this capability is expensive, which is why it is usually limited to public safety organizations, though some operators like Air Zermatt are private. While a jetpack medic might be able to compete with a subset up the capabilities of a hoist capable medevac helicopter, it won't have the range, speed, or full spectrum of services. If you end up needing a helicopter to evacuate the person anyways, you probably didn't gain a whole lot by having a jetpack medic fly out there first. Unless the jetpack bases are highly concentrated and very common in an area, they probably won't have a time advantage when it comes to onscene arrival either.

elil17 6y ago
I agree that a jet pack isn’t as useful as a helicopter, but they are way, way cheaper. Medical helicopters cost millions of dollars and require expensive fuel and highly trained pilots. Jetpacks cost $100-300k, use a fraction of the fuel, and can be flown with a sports pilot license (much easier to acquire and maintain).
- treetoppin 6y ago
  Good points, but remember we can't only compare the initial capital outlay, we have to compare the hourly operating cost. I imagine that it isn't quite as cheap as you think, and we would also need to see sustained operations from these jetpack to know what the hourly flight time cost is. This is amplified if you need 10 to 20 jetpack to cover and area that could be serviced by two helicopters that are being leased under a maintenance contract. As far as the pilot requirements, sure a jetpack might be able to be just a sport pilot, but can they operate in a commercial capablity then? The FAA says no. Also, this probably isn't trivial operations (search and rescue is highly dynamic, especially in mountainous, maritime, urban or poor weather conditions. On paper my flight experience is 500 hours and a commercial license, which isn't that hard to get as a rotary wing pilot. But in actuality it's 500 hours of highly expensive military flying in dangerous environments, to the tune of well over a million dollars of initial training. Just like a commercial EMS operator isn't going to hand the keys to a helicopter to anyone with a commercial rotary license, are you really going to have a jetpack medic be someone with the bare minimum of certification?

simion314 6y ago

I am wondering if you could use this technology to create a hovercraft like vehicle that anybody could drive around, maybe pickup the victim. If the flight altitude and speeds are low a computer could handle all the tricky parts and the driver would just point the direction, in case of problems it would land in a few seconds (maybe this exists already but are not popular)

gwbas1c 6y ago

Where can I buy one? Seriously, I want one! (But it's probably too expensive!)

hermitcrab 6y ago

I love how every piece of new tech from robots, to drones to jet packs is sold as helping disaster relief and first responders. But then is actually actually adopted by the military to kill people.

Shivetya 6y ago
I always figured we saw the technology with disaster relief and first responders because of the military development not panning out as expected and companies seeking to recoup investment. we don't see a lot of military programs until long after they have either been shut down or morphed into something new. everything kills, people just need to recognize the simple fact that that government which can provide you with roads, water, health care, and more, has the same power to deprive you and others of the same. the trouble is finding politicians who appeal to your sense of helping others and not in electing them to do unto others.