Talk:Casualty evacuation

message: Maybe I'm missing something, but doesn't the first paragraph contradict the subsequent paragraphs? - Mgcsinc 19:20, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Without a better explanation and elaboration (Which I can't give), you're right... 68.39.174.238 23:36, 25 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  i fail to see the contradiction. 68.32.130.196 12:31, 13 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)
thread_title: Self-Contradiction

message: 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)
thread_title: Could the following restatements of the CASEVAC and MEDEVAC articles clear up both the contradictions?

message: Where does the original MEDEVAC article get its documentation?
SalineBrain (talk) 12:27, 13 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: And, now the MEDEVAC article must be marked for contradiction

message: 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)
thread_title:  Combat Medic vs Combat Lifesaver 

message: 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)
thread_title:  "Unarmed" vs "armed" distinction? 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Australia 

message: 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)
thread_title:  No Standard Terminology even in U.S. Military 

message: 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.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 01:47, 1 August 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified