A test flight in the Lake District has demonstrated the potential for the use of jet suits for paramedics in a mountain rescue setting, a new approach that could supplement ground-based mountain rescue teams, air ambulance and rescue helicopters. Perhaps this is a glimpse into the future of mountain rescue... but will it take off?
I wonder what the risk of a jetsuit accident bad outcome is compared to the risk of a casualty bad outcome. Some serious stats crunching and risk:reward calculating will need to take place I think.
I predict a huge surge in mountain rescue volunteers!
That is awesome, I want one, no more long walk ins to the crag
And save yourself the trouble of all that climbing nonsense once you get there!
Next? Drone with a dangling screwgate biner? Just clip yourself in and off your belay.
I'm sure I'm not the only one who had to check the date when they saw the title.
I would like to see this jet suit operate in 60mph winds, might be interesting !
I cant understand why they dont use off trial / off road bikes to get nearer the casualty a bit quicker......i know riding on footpaths etc, but if its an emergency, and it isnt going to cause erosion in the few instances used.
or do they??
But those jetpacks look bloody brilliant fun.........
I can't see this ever really taking off.
Good point why not just zoom about on a quad bike, or at least use it to get a first-aider to the casualty to hold the fort until the land rover arrives? I'm sure there is a good reason why they don't I just can't think of it.
There must be a reason, surely I can't be the first person to think of this; it's a pretty obvious solution........
Christ, imagine flying that thing into the mountains in low viz and rotor. No thanks.
jk
They had to trial this thing in the Lake District, didn't they?
If they'd tried it in the Peak District, then our vulture would have had him.
Isn't it faster for a heli to get there if you include the time to drive into the valley?
That'll be it!
> I cant understand why they dont use off trial / off road bikes to get nearer the casualty a bit quicker......i know riding on footpaths etc, but if its an emergency, and it isnt going to cause erosion in the few instances used.
> or do they??
> But those jetpacks look bloody brilliant fun.........
Some of the US teams use off-road motorbikes for sure.
I think its because there is quite a high risk of injury to the driver/rider.
When I did some ATV training the chap running it told us about a paramedic that was using an ATV to reach a casualty. He had a wobble, stuck his leg out and broke it when the vehicle went over. Cue a second paramedic to help the first plus the original casualty.
It will still have limitations, its a good add to the golf bag but end of the day it will only ever supplement boots on the ground.
Just saw this on the telly. A few things I was wondering about:
What's the danger of singeing your plums (sorry to be sexist)?
How much heat is there underneath those jets? They definitely seem to create turbulence and wash patterns on the grass and water.
What date is it?
> Christ, imagine flying that thing into the mountains in low viz and rotor. No thanks.
Yes, I'm sure they will reserve use of it for the very worst of weather.
Suggestion I saw on the BBC article was the time advantage - 90 seconds -v- 30 minutes to get up a hill.
However, that didn't take into account getting all the kit out and putting it on, safety checks and start-up process for the jets. Once landed with the casualty, they've then got hot equipment to deal with that you can't just drop on the ground.
You've also just bumped up your costs a fair chunk with jet fuel, training, servicing and maintenance.
Looks cool as heck, but I can't see any real advantage overall.
I predict that this will work perfectly and be a great success, unlike the last 70 years of jetpack development.
> If they'd tried it in the Peak District, then our vulture would have had him.
Afraid the vulture has gone south - seen in Leics on the 20th, don't know about after that, maybe it's hopped back over t'channel.
> Christ, imagine flying that thing into the mountains in low viz and rotor. No thanks.
You'll note in the video that the pilot never strays more than 2-3m above the ground, which is Gravity Industries' stated use case. I can see this being applied in a totally different scenario to helicopter rescue.
https://www.selfridges.com/GB/en/cat/gravity-industries-gravity-flying-jet-...
You can imagine the statement on arrival at a casualty scene,
“Have no fear. Anti-Gravity Man is here!”
Nice bit of PR for Gravity Industries, and for Lakes Mountain Rescue, but how practical? The suit always seems to be flown by the guy who invented it, so has hours of practice controlling what's seemingly a very tricky bit of kit to master. The notion that a local Rescue volunteer could be trained to use it to a safe level, for possibly one/two? occasions a year, seems fanciful. But hey, everyone got on TV, so job done...
> Isn't it faster for a heli to get there if you include the time to drive into the valley?
Probably but the cost is different to a twin turbine helicopter with a 3 or 4 man crew. Still, weather, cost and licencing seem like pretty fundamental stumbling blocks to me.
There'll be somewhere between 6 and 10 full fadec mini turbines in that suit, probably around £3k each in hobbyist form so maybe more like £30k each certified. Plus the suit/chassis. Core parts (meaning a full rebuild) will have single digit lifespan in hours for manned flight given the temperature and stress they're subject to and the catastrophic impact of an 80,000rpm turbine rupture against the body. Bearing that in mind regular training/currency flights will compete with full scale helicopter running costs once that's factored in.
I suspect battery electric or hybrid manned hexa/octa-copters are more realistic for first responders in inaccessible terrain on a 20 year horizon. Much much easier to control via an electronic stability management platform so more akin to driving a car than wingsuit BASE skill wise and there is the opportunity to provide for reasonable crash survivability and payload.
jk
> Yes, I'm sure they will reserve use of it for the very worst of weather.
We do get a lot of bad weather in the hills though and bad weather for walking and flying are very different things.
jk
I think we should give GNAAS a bit more credit than just a slick PR move!
They clearly mention they have crunched the incidents stats, thus for a sunny Bank Holiday, they will know the likelihood of an incident. Forward position their paramedic and van, in the centre of the most likely call out area from the stats, and response time could be pretty impressive. Lets not forget that your standard ambulance crew will not be forward positioned to that extent (plus have proceedural limits as to far off road they go), and your MR team also has to muster.
We can discuss whether having a paramedic and support driver just sitting around the ODG is the best use for the common good and charity donations ......but for the more elderly intermittent hill-walker having a heart attack at Pavey its a winner.
Its just a extension of pre-positioning away from base that the Unions hated...........but has worked where I live, fast response vehicle turned up at the end of the street Thursday and Friday home-time commutes, when the stat's said a bad crash was more likely. OK most of the time it just sat there, but when there was a prang, it got to the incident alot faster than if it had been dispatched from the depot, as it didn't have to negotiate town centre log-jam.
Obviously GNASS are trying to work smarter, not harder, and being a charity have more flexibility to achieve that.........as well as a keen eye on PR!
Pre-placing it in the right spot at the right time is the clever bit that would turn a gimmick into a useful tool.
I think that its' a great PR move, especially for the Jetpack company.
Seem to be forgetting that we have a great system in place already combining GNAS and MRT.
The vast majority of incidents in the mountains are not life threatening and do not actually require a hasty response. In these instances current MR response works fine. I think that people accept a delay in Mountainous environments, especially for a twisted ankle.
In more serious injuries or medical emergencies then GNAS and Coastguard Helicopters are there to step in. As an example two weeks ago GNAS were landed on the summit of Scafell Pike within 20 minutes of the 999 call. I can't see how a forward positioned jet pack could beat this.
We also have to remember why hillwalking MRT works well - most of the time, bad weather grounds any air asset.
In terms of ATV's: some MR teams do use them. Most of the Lakes teams do not due to very rocky and steep terrain.
Edit: forgot something!
In reply to jkarran:
> regular training/currency flights will compete with full scale helicopter running costs once that's factored in.
Actually it's 5 turbines at 120,000rpm, according to them But you are right, with small TBOH and associated costs it could be comparable to running a small heli, something like R22 might be even cheaper
The suit seems to be piloted completely manually by arm movement (and thrust control?), probably requiring advanced training and pretty good arm strength and coordination (not an issue with MRTs, they tend to be fit ) - look how the pilot keeps his arms perfectly straight all the time. At least Zapata's "hoverboard" (of the Channel crossing fame) was self-stabilising (and even then the inventor admitted it was very hard to fly)!
Endurance would be a problem, the suit has 5-10min, that could pretty much preclude any searching for the casualty. In the worst case, you'd have just over 1.5min to get there to have enough juice to get back to car with some reserve (extended on a single leg mission, as it could be carried back or toppled up by the main team).
Cool video, though. The camera drone operator following him in flight was pretty good!
> Actually it's 5 turbines at 120,000rpm, according to them Might be not that cheap in the long run - who knows what the TBOH for such a mini-turbine is, and now you have five of them.
Hmm, I spotted that when I watched the full vid, the backpack units of the early prototype have been replaced with one big jet presumably chasing efficiency at the cost of a more complex maintenance inventory.
> The suit seems to be piloted completely manually by arm movement (and thrust control?), probably requiring advanced training and pretty good arm strength and coordination (not an issue with MRTs, they tend to be fit ) - look how the pilot keeps his arms perfectly straight all the time. At least Zapata's "hoverboard" (of the Channel crossing fame) was self-stabilising (and even then the inventor admitted it was very hard to fly)!
I think there must be quite limited turbine thrust control, perhaps no more than a trigger for idle or 'on' where 'on' is a constant thrust pre-matched to pilot and fuel load, these things spool up and down comparatively slowly so manually managing lift directly via fuel flow (beyond maybe a trim wheel) would be horrible, you'd quickly get into a pilot induced oscillation as soon as you hit turbulence or got stressed. Actual lift force appears to be fine tuned by thrust vectoring.
jk
I have to question the fact that GNAS feel it is their business to extend some sort of instant safety net in to every corner of the land, zooming around like Buzz Lightyear. Surely it is an important element in the attraction of wilder places that one is to a certain extent out on a limb. People venture to certain wilderness in the clear knowledge that there is no possibility of rescue or assistance in the case of an issue and that is half the point. The Lakes are not such a place but they are no theme park either. I don’t expect or even want the same degree of civilised security at the top of Scafell as I would in town.
> I don’t expect or even want the same degree of civilised security at the top of Scafell as I would in town.
You might if your heart started playing up. You could always just not call for help though if maintaining the illusion of isolation to the end really mattered.
jk
> you'd quickly get into a pilot induced oscillation as soon as you hit turbulence or got stressed. Actual lift force appears to be fine tuned by thrust vectoring.
And literally "manual" thrust vectoring at that
Still, no stabilisation - probably requires a skilled pilot, not just an operator?
With all the limitations like flight endurance and skills, I guess any usefulness in MRT would be limited to some very special situations and known hotspots. Preferably with no dry grass, that could turn into a real hot spot
Thanks.
> You could always just not call for help though if maintaining the illusion of isolation to the end really mattered.>
If you don't take a phone and there's no-one else about, it would be no illusion!
Can't see this getting past health and safety to be honest.
The second BMC Members Open Forum webinar took place on 20 March. Recently-appointed BMC CEO Paul Ratcliffe, President Andy Syme and Chair Roger Murray shared updates on staff changes, new and ongoing initiatives, insurance policy changes and the current...