User avatar
gegtim
Topic Author
Posts: 68
Joined: Tue Aug 03, 2010 1:37 am

A-380: A Good Platform For A Hospital In The Sky?

Fri Mar 16, 2012 1:53 am

Has the A-380 been considered as a medical evacuation aircraft? With all of the horrific earthquakes and tropical storms that occur in underdeveloped parts of the world I would think that it would make a wonderful platform for such a thing. Perhaps placing it under the United Nations it could be a globaly funded project. That airplane would be a hospital in the sky!

Tim
 
User avatar
BreninTW
Posts: 1538
Joined: Sun Jul 02, 2006 5:31 pm

RE: A-380: A Good Platform For A Hospital In The Sky?

Fri Mar 16, 2012 2:04 am

Military aircraft remain better options for the simple reason that they need a lot less infrastructure.

You'd need an enormous amount of infrastructure to load the evacuees onto an A380 -- infrastructure that is normally damaged in natural disasters.

Military aircraft are designed to be largely self-supporting, so they don't need the infrastructure. Add to that the fact that many military aircraft can operate from rough landing strips and you have a machine that is much better equipped to do the job than an A380 would be.
 
User avatar
WildcatYXU
Posts: 2607
Joined: Sat May 06, 2006 2:05 pm

RE: A-380: A Good Platform For A Hospital In The Sky?

Fri Mar 16, 2012 2:16 am

I'm afraid it would be too expensive for this purpose. And don't think it would be necessary - you can simply evacuate the people and treat them elsewhere. Even the best known flying hospital only works as a hospital on the ground. Everything is packed for the flights.
It's a DC 10 donated by FedEx (soon to be replaced by a FedEx MD 10) - the Orbis flying eye hospital.



[Edited 2012-03-15 19:17:26]
310, 319, 320, 321, 333, 343, 345, 346, 732, 735, 73G, 738, 744, 752, 762, 763, 77L, 77W, 788, AT4, AT7, BEH, CR2, CRA, CR9, DH1, DH3, DH4, E75, E90, E95, F28, F50, F100, Saab 340, YAK40
 
User avatar
DocLightning
Posts: 19763
Joined: Wed Nov 16, 2005 8:51 am

RE: A-380: A Good Platform For A Hospital In The Sky?

Fri Mar 16, 2012 2:19 am

The A380 would make a fantastic mobile treatment center, but not a good evacuation system. It's too big, too infrastructure-dependent, and when you're dealing with major disasters (tsunami, earthquake, hurricane, Superfly farts), you will have hundreds of thousands to millions of victims to handle. Where are you going to evacuate that many people to? With how many planes?

The other issue you have is getting the patients aboard. Many of them will be unable to walk and the main door to the A380 is high off the ground. Even if you convert the cargo bay a-la Air Force One, you still have to lift bedbound people off the ground. You'd have to install some sort of elevator that extends out of the underbelly, which is doable, but very $pen$ive.

Which leads into the economic aspect. The A380 is fantastically expensive, although it has wonderfully low operating costs. Flying hospitals get very little flight utilization, so while the A380's costs per ASM (or whatever the flying hospital equivalent would be) are rock-bottom low, the cost of ownership at something like a quarter of a billion dollars would be prohibitive. When you're talking about a not-for-profit venture, that's an important issue.

It would make much more sense to buy an old military cargo plane, like a C5-A. Patients could be rolled aboard on the cargo ramp, and there's plenty of floor space. There could even be an interior mod to make it a two-deck interior, I'd wager. It can land on semi-prepared airfields, which is important in disaster areas. Yes, it would guzzle fuel, but it would not be making flights every day. It would arrive somewhere, stay a few weeks, then move on. Maybe 15 flights per year or so. Although the cost per ASM-equivalent is high for such an aircraft, the utilization is so low that it would work out to be far less expensive in the end.
-Doc Lightning-

"The sky calls to us. If we do not destroy ourselves, we will one day venture to the stars."
-Carl Sagan
 
tonystan
Posts: 1266
Joined: Sat Jan 07, 2006 7:39 am

RE: A-380: A Good Platform For A Hospital In The Sky?

Fri Mar 16, 2012 2:38 am

Not to mention the fact that by and large only a handful of airports worldwide have runways and taxiways capable of handling even an empty A380!!!!
My views are my own and do not reflect any other person or organisation.
 
c680
Posts: 428
Joined: Sat Apr 23, 2005 6:03 am

RE: A-380: A Good Platform For A Hospital In The Sky?

Fri Mar 16, 2012 6:26 pm

DC-10s have been popular in the past for mobile surgery. Cheap, large, and can operate into lots of existing fields.

But now there is competition from the package delivery airlines (FedEx, UPS, DHL) who create more demand for these types of aircraft (inexpensive with a large floor plan / area)
My happy place is FL470 - what's yours?
 
User avatar
bikerthai
Posts: 2164
Joined: Wed Apr 28, 2010 1:45 pm

RE: A-380: A Good Platform For A Hospital In The Sky?

Fri Mar 16, 2012 8:02 pm

For medical evacuation, there are lots of planes out there already.

For emergency mobile hospital units, it's WAY cheaper to fabricate self contained operating rooms in a pallet (one or two of those cargo containers) that can be loaded on to C-17's or similar aircraft to be deployed. I'm sure there are examples of these already out there.

bt
Intelligent seeks knowledge. Enlightened seeks wisdom.
 
User avatar
Semaex
Posts: 731
Joined: Mon Nov 23, 2009 4:17 pm

RE: A-380: A Good Platform For A Hospital In The Sky?

Fri Mar 16, 2012 8:30 pm

Quoting WildcatYXU (Reply 2):
I'm afraid it would be too expensive for this purpose. And don't think it would be necessary - you can simply evacuate the people and treat them elsewhere. Even the best known flying hospital only works as a hospital on the ground. Everything is packed for the flights.

Yeah well, the MedEvac A310 MRTT is, in my opinion, on a different level of treating hospitalized people aboard. It is actually a flying hospital. Without a doubt it has the purpose of transporting people who are in need of such a transport to a hospital which is much better equipped, has more doctors, more facilities and so on and so forth, but if something very bad was going to happen while flying, the equipment on board would more than suffice.

However, on topic now, the MRTT MedEvac has an advantage that the A380 doesn't have, which is easy reconfiguratibility. Plus, as already mentioned, it doesn't need the infrastructure an A380 needs, which in the scenario the plane is in desperate need, most likely isn't available in the first place.
// You know you're an aviation enthusiast when you look at your neighbour's cars and think about fleet commonality.
 
User avatar
DocLightning
Posts: 19763
Joined: Wed Nov 16, 2005 8:51 am

RE: A-380: A Good Platform For A Hospital In The Sky?

Fri Mar 16, 2012 8:55 pm

Quoting bikerthai (Reply 6):
For emergency mobile hospital units, it's WAY cheaper to fabricate self contained operating rooms in a pallet (one or two of those cargo containers) that can be loaded on to C-17's or similar aircraft to be deployed. I'm sure there are examples of these already out there.

Also a very good point.
-Doc Lightning-

"The sky calls to us. If we do not destroy ourselves, we will one day venture to the stars."
-Carl Sagan
 
User avatar
readytotaxi
Posts: 3262
Joined: Mon Dec 11, 2006 2:09 am

RE: A-380: A Good Platform For A Hospital In The Sky?

Fri Mar 16, 2012 9:01 pm

Quoting BreninTW (Reply 1):
Military aircraft remain better options for the simple reason that they need a lot less infrastructure.

Time and time again the first thing needed after large natural disasters are large payload helicopters.
Often in short supply where these seem to happen.  
you don't get a second chance to make a first impression!
 
AR385
Posts: 6742
Joined: Fri Nov 07, 2003 8:25 am

RE: A-380: A Good Platform For A Hospital In The Sky?

Fri Mar 16, 2012 9:16 pm

Quoting gegtim (Thread starter):
With all of the horrific earthquakes and tropical storms that occur in underdeveloped parts of the world

You mean like Katrina? The Japanese earthquake?

As others have said, you would need a military, self sufficient transport. Tha A380 can´t make it to most airports except for those that are major hubs. Plus, access for the injured is a nightmare. Prices is quite high too. The Orbis planes throughout history have been donated, I believe.
 
bthebest
Posts: 434
Joined: Thu Jan 03, 2008 4:35 pm

RE: A-380: A Good Platform For A Hospital In The Sky?

Fri Mar 16, 2012 10:05 pm

Agree with all the other points above - but can you please edit the title to "A380" not "A-380" - its really bugging me! :P
 
User avatar
kc135topboom
Posts: 11002
Joined: Sun Jan 30, 2005 2:26 am

RE: A-380: A Good Platform For A Hospital In The Sky?

Fri Mar 16, 2012 10:12 pm

About the only large evacuation operation I can think of using large commerical transports was Operation Solomon in 1991. But even that operation used LY B-747Fs (along with IDF C-130s) to evacuate some 14,500 Ethiopian Jews to Israel. This operation set a record for the number of passengers flown on a commerical aircraft at some 1100 passengers aboard, and one or two babies were born in flight.

The IDF provided all the support needed for the LY B-747Fs on the ground in ADD.
 
Viscount724
Posts: 18977
Joined: Thu Oct 12, 2006 7:32 pm

RE: A-380: A Good Platform For A Hospital In The Sky?

Fri Mar 16, 2012 10:42 pm

Quoting AR385 (Reply 10):
Price is quite high too. The Orbis planes throughout history have been donated, I believe.

The current operational Orbis DC-10 is almost 42 years old, the 2nd DC-10 built, used in the certification program and kept by McDonnell-Douglas for about 7 years before being refurbished and delivered to Laker Airways in 1977. Later operated by ATA and defunct British charter carrier Cal Air (which became Novair) before going to Orbis in 1995.


View Large View Medium
Click here for bigger photo!

Photo © Barry Shipley
View Large View Medium
Click here for bigger photo!

Photo © Michael Arcellana


View Large View Medium
Click here for bigger photo!

Photo © Paul Robinson
View Large View Medium
Click here for bigger photo!

Photo © Paul Robinson


View Large View Medium
Click here for bigger photo!

Photo © Gary Watt
View Large View Medium
Click here for bigger photo!

Photo © Pedro Aragão

 
User avatar
zippyjet
Posts: 5089
Joined: Tue Sep 04, 2001 3:32 pm

RE: A-380: A Good Platform For A Hospital In The Sky?

Fri Mar 16, 2012 11:12 pm

Quoting WildcatYXU (Reply 2):
I'm afraid it would be too expensive for this purpose. And don't think it would be necessary - you can simply evacuate the people and treat them elsewhere. Even the best known flying hospital only works as a hospital on the ground. Everything is packed for the flights.
It's a DC 10 donated by FedEx (soon to be replaced by a FedEx MD 10) - the Orbis flying eye hospital.



Not to get off topic but before the DC 10's Orbis used an ex UA DC-8 and as this picture shows still retains the curtains and Palomar swingin 60's seats. (reading light in seat replaced when UA installed audio controls in it's place.


View Large View Medium
Click here for bigger photo!

Photo © Alastair T. Gardiner - WorldAirImages
View Large View Medium
Click here for bigger photo!

Photo © Fran Jurado


View Large View Medium
Click here for bigger photo!

Photo © Joseph K.K. Lee
View Large View Medium
Click here for bigger photo!

Photo © Joseph K.K. Lee



Back to the 380 would Airbus ever consider a military/transport version of their super jumbo?
Do some consider the C5 old technology?
I'm Zippyjet & I approve of this message!
 
User avatar
kc135topboom
Posts: 11002
Joined: Sun Jan 30, 2005 2:26 am

RE: A-380: A Good Platform For A Hospital In The Sky?

Fri Mar 16, 2012 11:22 pm

Quoting zippyjet (Reply 14):
Back to the 380 would Airbus ever consider a military/transport version of their super jumbo?
Do some consider the C5 old technology?

The A-380 would not make a very good C-5 replacement aircraft. To make it so would just about be a newly designed aircraft with nose and tail cargo doors. It would also have to be lowered to the ground, like the C-5, C-17, An-124, etc. A t-tail would be best, but the An-124 has a conventional tail so I guess that would work. It may also have to operate from very rough runways, so new landing gear would be needed. Even the B-747-8F would be a poor C-5 substitute, and she's a designed dedicated freighter.
 
PHX787
Posts: 7877
Joined: Thu Mar 15, 2012 7:46 pm

RE: A-380: A Good Platform For A Hospital In The Sky?

Sat Mar 17, 2012 12:03 am

Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 15):
The A-380 would not make a very good C-5 replacement aircraft

The C-5 however rides a bit lower to the ground than the A-380, and as mentioned above there will need to be some sort of lift system/some sort of conversion/whatever to load/unload this potential aircraft, which can run up in the $$$
Follow me on twitter: www.twitter.com/phx787
 
User avatar
Semaex
Posts: 731
Joined: Mon Nov 23, 2009 4:17 pm

RE: A-380: A Good Platform For A Hospital In The Sky?

Sat Mar 17, 2012 10:21 pm

Quoting PHX787 (Reply 16):
The C-5 however rides a bit lower to the ground than the A-380

Major difference between those two (and for that matter between every Military transport and Civilian aircraft) is that the Military ones have high wings, high engines.
Cannot think of a single Military transport without that feature, and obviously there's a reason for this design philosophy, as this infamous video of a C-17 landing in Afghanistan clearly shows.
// You know you're an aviation enthusiast when you look at your neighbour's cars and think about fleet commonality.
 
User avatar
lightsaber
Crew
Posts: 11829
Joined: Wed Jan 19, 2005 10:55 pm

RE: A-380: A Good Platform For A Hospital In The Sky?

Sat Mar 17, 2012 10:40 pm

Quoting WildcatYXU (Reply 2):

I'm afraid it would be too expensive for this purpose.

   However, due to the long times between overhaul, when the A380s become old (as in approaching their 2nd D-check), it would be worth buying an early example as a medical treatment center.

Quoting DocLightning (Reply 3):
The A380 would make a fantastic mobile treatment center, but not a good evacuation system.

   C-17s and C-130s should evacuate to a regional hub (or airport near a hospital) and then move the healthy evacuees and later stabilized patients onward ASAP. In a disaster zone, one needs a plane built to take 'irregular runways' with the *extreme* FOD tolerance of the military transports.

For serious numbers of injured, the hospital ships are the only hope and... they just cannot cope with the scope of some of these tragedies. Even the CASH hospitals (that replace the *M*A*S*H* units). However, disaster zones usually have cargo planes flying in full and back sans cargo. So it is best to have the recovery time outside of the impacted area where infrastructure is still operational (water, power, trucked/railed food and other supplies).

Lightsaber
"They did not know it was impossible, so they did it!" - Mark Twain
 
PHX787
Posts: 7877
Joined: Thu Mar 15, 2012 7:46 pm

RE: A-380: A Good Platform For A Hospital In The Sky?

Sat Mar 17, 2012 10:59 pm

Quoting Semaex (Reply 17):
Major difference between those two (and for that matter between every Military transport and Civilian aircraft) is that the Military ones have high wings, high engines.

   thanks for the video! that's impressive!

And you're right, I'm pretty sure the A-380 couldn't land like that, but I think there are some aircraft that have gravel shields on their engines?
Follow me on twitter: www.twitter.com/phx787
 
neutronstar73
Posts: 665
Joined: Mon Mar 21, 2011 7:57 pm

RE: A-380: A Good Platform For A Hospital In The Sky?

Mon Mar 19, 2012 3:10 am

A380 is to dependent on infrastructure to get the job done.

YOu need a C-17 or C130 to really get into difficult places.
 
BMI727
Posts: 11102
Joined: Mon Feb 02, 2009 9:29 pm

RE: A-380: A Good Platform For A Hospital In The Sky?

Mon Mar 19, 2012 3:47 am

Quoting BreninTW (Reply 1):

Military aircraft remain better options for the simple reason that they need a lot less infrastructure.

   Remember that after the earthquake in Haiti some crews inflated the emergency slides to offload their planes since airstairs were unavailable. I would think that a hospital aircraft in such a situation would have to sit on the ramp with an engine running, since I would doubt that the APU would be sufficient and assuming ground power in unavailable. So it would be burning a not insignificant amount of fuel, which probably cannot be replenished locally.

Even beyond that, disaster areas often do not have large airports and the full scale airlift of supplies and personnel is possibly going to be significantly hampered by an A380 sitting there taking up a bunch of ramp space. The best way to go about such operations is bring in the planes, get the cargo off, and get the planes out so the next planes can come in.

Quoting bikerthai (Reply 6):
For emergency mobile hospital units, it's WAY cheaper to fabricate self contained operating rooms in a pallet (one or two of those cargo containers) that can be loaded on to C-17's or similar aircraft to be deployed.

Not to mention that this does not keep the aircraft tied up. Furthermore, evacuation is further complicated by the fact that there may not be any reasonably close hospitals that can handle the influx of patients anyway.

Quoting zippyjet (Reply 14):
Back to the 380 would Airbus ever consider a military/transport version of their super jumbo?

No, going from a civilian transport to a full fledged military transport would require making it for all intents and purposes a new design.
Why do Aerospace Engineering students have to turn things in on time?
 
SchorschNG
Posts: 259
Joined: Sat Sep 11, 2010 11:40 am

RE: A-380: A Good Platform For A Hospital In The Sky?

Mon Mar 19, 2012 2:10 pm

Most disasters do leave many lightly injured people, most of them can be treated in fairly simple aid stations.
The need for highly equipped mobile hospitals is limited.

To be honest: in a disaster with many injured people it is not economical to treat those that so are badly injured that they require instant surgery (although economics may be considered secondary here, it is less the cost but the availability of help). Concentrate manpower on those that have good chances of survival. Disaster like the Tsunami or earthquakes and floods usually leave healthy but homeless people, people with mild to medium wounds (fractures and stuff), and dead people. Being several hours and days without professional medical attention will usually turn all badly injured people into the last catagory, unfortunately.

Additionally, it isn't the treatment of disaster-related injuries that calls for help (as there aren't so many in the first place). It is the continuation of normal medical service that requires help (and infrastructure). As mentioned previously mobile hospitals are the best option, and they can remain in the country for prolonged time periods.

Disaster become extremely sad when the (unharmed) survivors start dying of diarrhea and simple infects due to lack of help.

[Edited 2012-03-19 07:11:25]
From a structural standpoint, passengers are the worst possible payload. [Michael Chun-Yung Niu]
 
User avatar
kc135topboom
Posts: 11002
Joined: Sun Jan 30, 2005 2:26 am

RE: A-380: A Good Platform For A Hospital In The Sky?

Mon Mar 19, 2012 2:35 pm

Quoting PHX787 (Reply 19):
but I think there are some aircraft that have gravel shields on their engines?

IIRC, AS had some B-727-200CFs with gravel shields to protect the engines, and special nose wheel tires, as they went into some austier airfields above the Arctic Circle in Canada and Alaska. The runways were gravel runways.
 
User avatar
kanban
Posts: 3644
Joined: Sun Jan 06, 2008 1:00 am

RE: A-380: A Good Platform For A Hospital In The Sky?

Mon Mar 19, 2012 7:39 pm

Looking at the thread title, yes it would make a good hospital "IN THE SKY"... the problem would be slowing down enough for helicopters to land on the wings to transfer patients....   

Who is online