Talk:Casualty evacuation

Self-Contradiction

Maybe I'm missing something, but doesn't the first paragraph contradict the subsequent paragraphs? - Mgcsinc 19:20, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

Without a better explanation and elaboration (Which I can't give), you're right... 68.39.174.238 23:36, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

i fail to see the contradiction. 68.32.130.196 12:31, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

In the 1st paragraph "CASEVAC aircraft are not equipped with specific life saving equipment or specially trained medical personnel", second paragraph: "CASEVAC personnel have extensive medical training. [...] Trained in advanced life-saving techniques, CASEVAC is directly responsible [...]". I can't reconcile those two statements. 68.39.174.238 22:59, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

I have served in the army before so I would like clear this up,

"CASEVAC aircraft are not necessarily equipped with specific life saving equipment or specially trained medical personnel. They are used as a primary means of getting a casualty back to another location were they can be treated by professional medical staff"

I was a specially trained CasEvac Corpsman for OIF II & OIF IV, with (my squadron) HMM-161 out of TQ Iraq. I'm pretty sure we're highly trained, and the Corpsmen that went after my OIF II team (which was the first CasEvac dedicated Marine squadron from my understanding) were and are even more trained than the first team - which landed us the label of the O.G. CasEvac or just the "ghetto CasEvac" team since we didn't have a budget for high-end gear/equipment and had to procure some of our equipment in 'non-conventional' means. So this part should be edited to say that even though CasEvac is a spur-of-the-moment/immediate pick-up for wounded personnel, there are a few teams of dedicated CasEvac personnel in Iraq right now, or something to that effect meaning there are people highly trained for this mission. 71.10.168.69 (talk) 03:40, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

WikiProject class rating

This article was automatically assessed because at least one WikiProject had rated the article as stub, and the rating on other projects was brought up to Stub class. BetacommandBot 09:03, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

Compounding and clearing up the self-contradiction

[1]: "Casualty Evacuation (CASEVAC)

Casualty evacuation is the removal of casualties from the battlefield and transport to medical facilities. Known as CASEVAC, a range of vehicles are used in modern armies to fulfil casualty evacuation, such as the APC and helicopter."

and from the Wikipeda MEDEVAC: [2]:

"Medevac is a portmanteau for "medical evacuation."

The term medevac is usually applied to a vehicle, plane, or helicopter used as an ambulance (sometimes called an "air ambulance"). [...snip...] Most patients transported by medevac are taken to a specialized hospital known as a trauma center. [...snip...] The technique has its roots in the establishment of the Australian Royal Flying Doctor Service, which was established in 1928 to bring doctors to patients and patients to hospitals from the remote outback. [...snip...] The U.S. Army [...snip...] established semi-permanent field hospitals immediately behind the front lines, which allowed wounded soldiers to receive complete medical treatment after only a short helicopter flight. The technique became widely known in the film (and later TV series} "M*A*S*H".

In modern American military terminology, medevac is often differentiated from Casualty Evacuation (casevac). In this context, medevac refers to the moving of a patient either from the point of injury, or a casualty collection point, to a medical facility or between the different levels of care with en route medical care whereas casevac has limited or no en route care and medical equipment. Casevac is heavily utilized by the US Marine Corps and manned by US Navy Hospital Corpsman; its helicopters are combat aircraft and will, as needed, land in 'hot zones' medevac helicopters would not, due to hostile fire. Accordingly, medevac aircraft are normally modified aircraft with lifesaving equipment on board as well as trained medical personnel as part of the aircrew. The aircraft are marked with the Red Cross/Crescent, and as such, covered by the Geneva Convention, thereby allowing the aircrew to only carry personal weapons. In the US Military, the medevac mission is performed primarily by the US Army."

Thus, the MEDEVAC article, above, contradicts itself also. (Casevac aircraft with limited or no en route care would likely not be manned by Navy Corpsmen.)

Could the following restatements of the CASEVAC and MEDEVAC articles clear up both the contradictions?

MEDEVAC: "Casevac is heavily utilized by the US Marine Corps and rarely manned by US Navy Hospital Corpsman; "

CASEVAC: "Casevac personnel have limited or no medical training. Their primary purpose is to transport casualties out of danger to the nearest appropriate medical facility, as quickly as possible. Casevac is directly responsible for drastically reducing the casualty mortality rate in the Iraq war, through the treatment of casualties at the receiving trauma center, by US Navy Hospital Corpsman, trained in advanced life-saving techniques."

I would have to argue the quote about MedEvacs having no Corpsmen in the back, if the aircraft commander or the squadron CO knows one of his birds is moving wounded (troops, civilians or enemy personnel - the Hippocratic oath still applies), they will demand a Corpsman in the back just for the sake of having a trained medical personnel just in case something might happen where the patient would need immediate treatment, which the Marines would not have the ability to do since they're main focus is the aircraft. Anybody who's in charge of an aircraft doesn't want to have patients death on their hands if they can avoid it. Heck if a patient happens to start bleeding out from something during a night flight (lights out & flying on NVGs alone) in a Hot Zone and the Crew Chief and the A.O. are watching to make sure the aircraft is as safe as possible...the patients going to die if nobody can treat him/her. It may have been rarely manned in Vietnam or other wars but this isn't the case today. Also MedEvacs are used by all braches of the military, since CasEvac denotes urgency and trying to keep the patient within the Golden Hour for proper treatment, MedEvac is when a patient is stable but still needs to be moved to a higher level of care. Some examples are: a patient has gotten treated for loosing his leg in combat but needs to return the US (a higher level of care) for rehabilitation OR a patient needs to go to the next higher level of care which has the ability to test for an STD, which also means not every MedEvac mission is life and death since the second example was from one of my many night flights that I did during OIF II.

So in recap MedEvac = non-urgent patient movement, while CasEvac = the loss of life, limb or eye sight if not treated within the golden hour, of course these are military terms in a war zone so I'm not sure how the civilian helicopter paramedics/nurses terminology works or differs.71.10.168.69 (talk) 04:28, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

And, now the MEDEVAC article must be marked for contradiction

Where does the original MEDEVAC article get its documentation? SalineBrain (talk) 12:27, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

Combat Medic vs Combat Lifesaver

Be careful how you throw these terms around when editing this article. In the United States Army, a Combat Medic is an actual MOS (a job you train for months in) and capable of doing much, much more to save someone's life than a mere combat lifesaver. Combat lifesavers (abbreviated to CLS, as in "CLS bag") are merely soldiers who have attended a 1-week course of classroom instruction, typically with a practical exercise involving initiating an IV (usually soldiers practice this on eachother - you find out who the ones with weak stomachs are very quickly). Anyway, a CLS is just a certification available to all soldiers, but is not an actual job. The idea behind CLS is to enable the run-of-the-mill soldier to better help his buddy until the real medics get there. And not all soldiers get trained on this - also the training changes from year to year to reflect lessons learned in the warzone. A good example is how we used to be trained not to use a tourniquet unless you absolutely had to - that led to too many soldiers bleeding out. Now if the bleeding doesn't stop after applying an "Israeli bandage" you immediately slap a tourniquet on, his limb be damned. Better than losing the whole body! 214.13.173.15 (talk) 16:47, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

I don't mean to nit pick but, it is more accurate to say that it is a career long training process. As long as you are a medic, you continue to train, because medical skills are very perishable. CLS is a wonderful program but the next time somebody calls my aid bag a CLS bag, I may shoot them. I am very proud of this job and you find that other medics and corpsmen are too. --Kerwin15 (talk) 01:15, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

"Unarmed" vs "armed" distinction?

Michael Yon has claimed that in Coalition force practice, a key distinction between Medevac and Casevac is that the former vehicles are marked with red crosses and operate unarmed (vulnerable), whereas the latter (including the "Pedros", q.v.) operate as regular force elements and can defend themselves, the patients, and the LZ if need be. If true, this seems a distinction that merits the separate entry. This matter might also feed into some of the ones mentioned above. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.18.166.157 (talk) 12:06, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

Australia

I've pulled the following from the main text, as it seems overly detailed for this article. Shimgray | talk | 23:52, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

CASEVAC Procedure

In Australia, the procedure for CASEVAC is below.

Serial Alpha: Callsign of Unit Requiring CASEVAC
Serial Bravo: Grid Reference at pickup point
Serial Charlie: Number of walking casualties (sitting)
Serial Delta: Number of non-walking casualties (stretcher)
Serial Echo: Description of injuries (very specific)
Serial Foxtrot: Priority/urgency
Serial Golf: Special equipment?
Serial Hotel: Helicopter help?
Serial India: Method of marking (eg. IR, whistle)
Serial Juliet: Tactical security (if applicable)
Serial Kilo: Additional remarks

The priority (serial Foxtrot) is sent as either Priority 1, Priority 2, or Priority 3. These mean:
Priority 1- Evacuation required in under 1 hour or else serious permanent injury/death is likely.
Priority 2- Evacuation required in under 6 hour or else serious permanent injury/death is likely.
Priority 3- Evacuation required in under 24 hour or else serious permanent injury/death is likely.

Example of Australian Army CASEVAC

In this example:
- HQ callsign - OA
- Casualty platoon callsign - 21A

  - OA this is 21A CASEVAC CASEVAC CASEVAC NODUFF NODUFF NODUFF, over
  - 21A this is OA SEND over

  - OA this is 21A

  Serial Alpha: 21A
  Serial Bravo: Grid Reference 278876, I say again, Grid Reference 278876
  Serial Charlie: 9
  Serial Delta: 1
  Serial Echo: Broken leg, fragments of bone protruding from flesh, blood everywhere
  Serial Foxtrot: Priority 1
  More to follow, over
  -21A this is OA Send over
  -OA this is 21A
  Serial Golf: Stretcher, large bandages
  Serial Hotel: Nil
  Serial India: Section of soldiers with fluorescent vests beside road
  Serial Juliet: Nil
  Serial Kilo: Nil

  OVER

  - 21A this is OA AKNOWLEDGED out.

You will notice in the middle 21A says 'more to follow, over' This is so 0A will have time to catch up and not rush and miss important detail. All numerical values must be repeated twice using the words 'I Say Again'. The word "REPEAT" is never used in this situation, as "REPEAT" is a proword for "repeat last fire mission" in military radio communication.
A SIMCAS is where a Simulation CASEVAC is done. To signify the difference between a NODUFF CASEVAC and a SIMCAS CASEVAC, the opening procedure is modified from "NODUFF NODUFF NODUFF" to "SIMCAS SIMCAS SIMCAS".

No Standard Terminology even in U.S. Military

Reference Slippery Stuff: CASEVAC v. MEDEVAC at Michael-Yon.com we're all over the place. This wiki page suffers, partly as a result of a terminology issue within DoD. Caisson 06 (talk) 15:05, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

DUSTOFF is an acronym?

Your write up states "DUSTOFF is an acronym meaning Dedicated Unhesitating Service To Our Fighting Forces". I was back from serving with the 57th Medical Detachment for about 40 years before I heard of this acronym. This sounds like Hollywood to me. Dustoff was simply a call sign for the helicopters of the 57th. The Signal Corps tried to change Dustoff to Hickory Smoke while I was there but, understandably, the troops on the ground refused to use Hickory Smoke. We (the troops & us pilots) had enough problems without adding confusion (more confusion) to the mix. To this day Army Medical Evacuation is still called "Dustoff". Alex J. Ortolano 184.36.51.106 (talk) 23:13, 26 June 2013 (UTC) Dustoff 78 Vietnam 1965

"Dedicated Unhesitating Service To Our Fighting Forces" is actually a 'backronym' devised by the DUSTOFF Association back in the late 1980s, early 1990s. https://dustoff.org/

My understanding of the origin of the name was that by the time then Major Lloyd E. Spencer (the original commander of the 57th) was in country and working with the PTB at MAC-V, the list of call signs was into the D's...and that he was given a half dozen or so to choose from. His choice was, coincidentally, quite apt, as those of us who have ridden the birds have noticed in many areas of the world, over 5 decades now.

there is also a specific Vietnam DUSTOFF association: https://www.vietnamdustoff.com/

but I am getting SSL internal security alerts when I try to connect with either website.

Charles S. Krin, DO(ret) formerly 91B2F, 4/507th Medical Company (Air Ambulance), Fort Sill, OK, 1980-83, later CPT, MC, USAR.

DocKrin (talk) 14:49, 20 April 2019 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Casualty evacuation. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20140417170808/http://www.naemt.org/education/TCCC/guidelines_curriculum.aspx to http://www.naemt.org/education/TCCC/guidelines_curriculum.aspx

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 01:47, 1 August 2017 (UTC)