On about the idiot box, again.

Anybody else watch "Crisis Command" this evening on BBC2?

http://www.bbc.co.uk/crisiscommand/

Not a bad programme, all in all - especially as I got all but 1 of their 7
options right, and the one I got wrong wasn't critical. So it's nice to
know I _could_ run the country.

One of the contestants, Simon Woodroffe, came across as a complete twat,
mind. A 747 crashed into the Houses of Parliament, after he had continually
dithered about whether to shoot it down and he launched into a speech about
this changing the face of the world. A born politician, if ever I saw one


--
AndrewR, D.Bot (Celeritas)
Kawasaki ZX-6R J1
BOTAFOT#2,ITJWTFO#6,UKRMRM#1/13a,MCT#1,DFV#2,SKoGA#0 (and KotL)
BotToS#5,SBS#25,IbW#34, TEAR#3 (and KotL), DS#5, Keeper of the TFSTR#
The speccy Geordie twat.

 

continually
<snip>
and that is a problem.. how?

JB

 

Similar here
Have to say that the producers clearly picked their people well, they were a
bunch of limp wristed Guardianista liberal cry babies if I ever I saw any.
FFS I'd like th think that in any real situation that 767 would have been
reduced to just so much shrapnel whilst it was still over the sodding
channel!

Oh yus, a complete ****, definitely politician material.

Ag **** it, it could have been worse, it was only the parliament that got
hit

 

It was a complete missed opportunity: I was really unimpressed. Get
together a bunch of people who don't seem to have have any previous
briefing on or aptitude for the subject, face them with a made-up
crisis of a magnitude that nobody's ever had to deal with before, ask
them _multiple-choice questions_ about how to deal with it, and decide
whether they're right or not based on what the experts say would have
been the correct approach. Given that nobody has yet crashed a plane
into the houses of parliament, exactly how much experience do these
experts have anyway?

"Do you use the helicopters to send in paramedics, or to send out
burns victims?" Well, how about _both_? The paramedics can stay on
site and do whatever they can - even if they run out of supplies,
there's probably going to be a need for staunching blood flows,
reassurance, triage etc - and the helicopters can then take off again
with the burns victims (or at any rate, the 86 burns victims who most
urgently need treatment; I dunno what was supposed to happen to the
rest of them) and fly them off to the specialist units.

"There are people stuck on the Tube. Do you (a) get them off, or (b)
leave them there?" Where was the option for "(c) go down and explain
matters to them, get the aged, ill, small kids and hysterically
claustrophobic off, and leave the rest there"? That surely ought to
be obvious even to the people on the ground, never mind the ministers
who are apparently making the decisions.

"A plane is claiming engine trouble and wants to fly to heathrow
instead of aberdeen". So why in God's name would you even _consider_
asking it to fly a holding pattern? If it has engine trouble serious
enough to divert, you want it on the ground asap, and if (as turns
out) they're lying about that bit, at least they could be expected to
pretend to be

I don't think any of them acquitted themselves particularly well, to
be honest.

Changed the face of Big Ben, at least. While I'm ranting, though: the
live videophone hookups had almost the standard of acting I'd expect
from a secondary school role-playing class.

Do I sound less than impressed? I guess. Bring back Time Commanders.


-dan

 

To be fair the plane crashing was after they had made all of their
decisions, so it was pretty much immaterial whether anybody had any
experience of it or not.

They had a plane, which they knew was under terrorist control, heading for
central London and refusing to divert; their choice was whether to shoot it
down and kill the 200 people on board or risk it crashing into London, with
unknown loss of life.

The first question about the plane was also one where more than one option
was possible; asking them to divert again as well as launching fighter
planes was my prefered choice.

BTW, the plan wasn't to treat the burns victims who most urgently needed it,
but to treat those who were most likely to survive. I'm pretty sure this is
the technique used on battlefields and that it has a name, but I'm buggered
if I can remember what it is. Someone round here will know.

True, it put me in mind of "Life of Brian" ... "We need _immediate_ action!"
etc.

I thought it was better than Time Commanders, if only because the host
wasn't so fucking annoying.


--
AndrewR, D.Bot (Celeritas)
Kawasaki ZX-6R J1
BOTAFOT#2,ITJWTFO#6,UKRMRM#1/13a,MCT#1,DFV#2,SKoGA#0 (and KotL)
BotToS#5,SBS#25,IbW#34, TEAR#3 (and KotL), DS#5, Keeper of the TFSTR#
The speccy Geordie twat.

 

Somebody needed to, given they had 45 minutes from first being aware of the
plane to it entering London airspace and they were still arguing about what
to do when time ran out.

Plus the flood gates one; it would have taken 3 minutes to close the gates,
but they spent nearly 11 minutes agreeing that it was the best thing to do.
Idiots.


--
AndrewR, D.Bot (Celeritas)
Kawasaki ZX-6R J1
BOTAFOT#2,ITJWTFO#6,UKRMRM#1/13a,MCT#1,DFV#2,SKoGA#0 (and KotL)
BotToS#5,SBS#25,IbW#34, TEAR#3 (and KotL), DS#5, Keeper of the TFSTR#
The speccy Geordie twat.

 

Triage - separate your casualties into three classes; minor wounds who need
minimal treatment, serious life threatening wounds that need major
treatment, and serious wounds that can be relatively easily treated. The
category that would tie up surgeons for longest gets lowest priority, with
the surgeons concentrating on those that can be patched up and sent back to
the front and then the minor wounds victims who again can be sent back out
as cannon fodder.

Cheers

 

Triage?

Used in all major incidents, IIRC. Apparently became common practice
following the Harrow & Wealdstone train crash (1952).

 

Triage

 

Yup, that's the chap.

You win today's star prize of <looks around desk> a fluorescent green hair
clip, in the shape of a flower, that Emma left in here. I'm sure it will
look lovely on you.


--
AndrewR, D.Bot (Celeritas)
Kawasaki ZX-6R J1
BOTAFOT#2,ITJWTFO#6,UKRMRM#1/13a,MCT#1,DFV#2,SKoGA#0 (and KotL)
BotToS#5,SBS#25,IbW#34, TEAR#3 (and KotL), DS#5, Keeper of the TFSTR#
The speccy Geordie twat.

 

On Tue, 3 Feb 2004 23:59:06 -0000, "AndrewR"
<> bored us all completely to death
with wittery prose along the lines of:

I checked the website and thought that the program would be a lot
better if they had 'normal' people on. Hearts would probably play a
more important part, IMO.

 

what do you mean? There was a corporate responsibility consultant, a
barrister and an entrepreneur - what could be more normal than that?

 

I didn't see the program, but have the impression that bods, like the
above, would think of money, politics and popularity first and people
second. It could have done with people like AndrewR. Think. Three
AndrewR's and what could have happened?

Was it a one off, the prog?

 

Barrister - check.
Entrepreneur - check.
Responsibility Consultant - er, WTF is one of them, then?

 

I'd bet that in August 2001 the Americans would have said similar.

 

he tells companies that if they're going to dump hazardous toxic
waste, that they better damn well do it quietly and make sure no-one
finds out.

 

Jesus! You could at least put a warning in the subject heading if you're
going to float ideas like that!

If they share your plans then let's hope so, eh?


--
AndrewR, D.Bot (Celeritas)
Kawasaki ZX-6R J1
BOTAFOT#2,ITJWTFO#6,UKRMRM#1/13a,MCT#1,DFV#2,SKoGA#0 (and KotL)
BotToS#5,SBS#25,IbW#34, TEAR#3 (and KotL), DS#5, Keeper of the TFSTR#
The speccy Geordie twat.

 

No. It was a trailer for a new series. (don't know when as
paper doesn't say)

 

Oh sure, before those planes crashed into the World Trade Center etc we'd
all have fallen for such a ruse, no doubt about it; but since then, well the
genie's out of the bottle as it were, now is when we start shooting down
hijacked aircraft unfortunately.

Which in turn no doubt gives the terror wallahs something else to play with
:-/

 

That's not how I understood it.

1. Minor injuries that can wait
2. Serious injuries that need immediate attention, but with a high
chance of success if they get it
3. Serious injuries with a poor chance of survivial even if given
imnmediate treatment.

You do 2 first, then 3 if they're still alive.