Airport use needs to be scaled back

December 15 , 2005

Let me make my position very clear: I am against helicopters or airplanes flying over our tightly knit residential communities of Bridgewater and Bedminster. The noise, at all hours of the day, is compromising the peaceful well-being that attracted us to this fine area.

I am even more against the loud Sikorsky medevac choppers. I don't think that this should be a popularity contest with members of the Bedminster board having to rescue themselves or resign if they are against medevac. The medevac helicopters are very noisy and fly over our homes at all hours of the day and night.

For years, we survived quite well without them and will continue to survive with much more sleep when they are gone. It seems that flights are already occurring at times of day that are not allowed for by the Somerset Airport charter. Certainly, a helicopter is not a "fixed wing aircraft" which is the only type specifically allowed at Somerset Airport.

To my knowledge, no other alternatives for a landing strip or home base were looked into for their placement. There are certainly hospitals and corporate centers which have existing heliports in the region. One can only assume that someone is to profit either politically or economically from this relocation.

Regardless of the location of medevac, it is the taxpayer who will be paying for their rescues. Despite whether it is a local Medevac, an equivalent helicopter rescue from an adjoining state, or a local ambulance company there will be a response to disaster and a financial impact of that response.

If we are to assume that most of the NorthSTAR medevac usage is justified, their response time to the scene of an accident would be an irrelevant part of the equation in most cases. The local rescue squads are at the scene with the police. Remember that the severely injured often must be extricated from their vehicles prior to transport. The time from extrication to arrival into the hands of a trauma team at the trauma center is where we run the clock. Is it really a certainty that during their average dispatch to the scene that an ambulance could not have gotten the victims to a nearby hospital to be stabilized in a shorter period of time? It would be interesting to learn what percentages of their flights are for non-medevac rescues or for non-critical rescues that did not warrant medevac to begin with.

We live in a society that wants everything done yesterday regardless of whether or not there is a positive impact on long-term morbidity and mortality. As a result of this we have the burden of paying for the tremendous costs involved. As a taxpayer I would think that we could save money by basing the medevac units at hospitals. They are transporting their victims to the hospital and would substantially limit their fuel and helicopter maintenance costs by not having to make an additional trip back to Somerset Airport.

In addition, the medevac medical professional personnel could be used at that hospital during their downtime from missions. The medical personnel could help with emergencies or other responsibilities such as starting intravenous fluids. Their training sessions could be concurrent with those of the emergency room staff. This downtime is probably substantial, when they are correctly dispatched. In today's times of escalating health care costs the added personnel could easily relieve some of the staffing burden at a local trauma center.

I remain in favor of allowing rescue operations to continue to save and preserve the lives of our citizens. I am against them being based in a closely bound suburban area.

Is this really the legacy that the Somerset Airport owners want to leave their descendants?

STEVEN GINSBERG
Bridgewater