PHI EMS Accident - Sam Houston National Forest, Texas June 8th [Archive]

Troglodita

11th Jun 2008, 19:02

First of all, my sincere condolences to Waynes' family.

but

That site is not the answer- there are too many scenarios that can occur where a report will not be entered in time for a second pilot to review it before walking out to his aircraft.

We need a better system.

Maybe you should consider a Bell 407 or similar is best operated day VFR only - even a very experienced pilot as Wayne undoubtedly was - is up
s:mad:t creek in crap weather in an unstabilised helicopter at 02:45 in the morning!
Even in a two crew fully stabilised and coupled IFR ship there are many times when NO is the only answer to a dubious callout.

Helismoke - I am sure you will agree that even with a full ATP and IR and a fair recency in IFR procedures, you can easily get out of your comfort zone with inadvertent IFR entry even in a fully capable ship with 2 x very experienced pilots such as yourself and the "Walking Fire Hydrant"!

It still amazes many of us "Tea bags" that you guys treat this type of flying as normal and acceptable!

zalt

12th Jun 2008, 01:06

http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/health/5828422.html

PHI Air Medical helicopter that crashed, killing a patient and all three crew members near Huntsville on Sunday, was flying a mission that a Life Flight helicopter had undertaken earlier, but cut short, driven back by low clouds.

The Life Flight helicopter was about 10 miles from Huntsville when the aircraft turned around and returned to Houston, said Tom Flanagan, chief operating officer at Memorial Hermann Hospital-The Texas Medical Center, which runs the Life Flight program.

The PHI crew based at a Bryan airport accepted the assignment after weighing the risks with a company adviser — an experienced pilot — in Phoenix.

"The crew had a conversation with the EOC (the pilot at enhanced operational control in Phoenix)," said PHI Air Medical spokesman Jonathan Collier. "He gave recommendations, and they decided to go. We are conducting a full investigation."

About 90 minutes after Life Flight turned back, PHI's helicopter crashed into pine trees in Sam Houston National Forest shortly before 3 a.m., killing patient David Disman, 58, and the crew.

______

A Life Flight helicopter was dispatched from Memorial Hermann to Huntsville at 12:45 a.m. The helicopter was about three or four minutes from Huntsville Memorial when it encountered low clouds, Flanagan said.

The Life Flight pilots were not supposed to fly when clouds were lower than 1,000 feet, and as the crew flew toward Huntsville, the cloud cover started at about 700 feet. The pilot turned his chopper around.

______

After Life Flight aborted the mission, Huntsville Memorial officials called PHI Air Medical and another helicopter company, the son said.

I believe Life Flight fly a TAWS equipped BK117. Neither operator uses NVG though Life Flight are due to get them later this year.

On another forum there is a comment that the aircraft departed on a direct routing across the blackness of the forest, when another option would have been to follow the less direct, but well lit Interstate.

BigMike

12th Jun 2008, 01:43

If the hospital had one company turn back due to weather, why did they then think another could do it? They should have accepted it was a marginal night and arranged road transport.
There is a depressing number of threads similar to this on this forum.

http://www.pprune.org/forums/showthread.php?t=204462&highlight=slovakia&page=2

SASless

12th Jun 2008, 01:45

§135.207 VFR: Helicopter surface reference requirements.

No person may operate a helicopter under VFR unless that person has visual surface reference or, at night, visual surface light reference, sufficient to safely control the helicopter.

Lord knows, I was guilty of it more than a few times myself. :(

TheVelvetGlove

12th Jun 2008, 03:08

Zalt: There are numerous inaccuracies in your post.

LifeFlight now operates only EC-145's.

At present, it appears that the PHI pilot was never advised that LifeFlight had earlier accepted the flight and then aborted enroute due to weather.

Had the PHI pilot known this, he never would have accepted the flight.

This is not unusual, as hospitals are under no duty to provide this information to HEMS providers.

And guys, we still don't know what caused this accident. I understand what all the signs point to, but a few things need to be ruled out first, before we begin pointing fingers.

Additionally, nearly every PHI EMS helicopter is NVG equipped, however, this particular helicopter was not.

LifeFlight has never had NVG's on any of their helicopters, and before this most recent accident occurred, LifeFlight had never announced to anyone that they had ever placed an order for NVG's (if they actually had placed an order, believe me- it would have been a large part of their ongoing marketing campaign in competition with PHI). It is suspected that this accident prompted LifeFlight to act swiftly and finally order NVG's for their EC-145's. They claim that they will have them by December; if they don't get them by Dec, then it will be abundantly clear that they were not being straight-up with the media and were using this tragic loss of life as an opportunity to advance their own program.

I hope they do get NVG's.... God knows, they need them.

zalt

15th Jun 2008, 22:45

VG - I stand corrected145s nor 117s - though it does make a stronger point about new twin engined aircraft. I standby the expectations of NVG introduction at Life Flight. I apologise for implying PHI did not use NVGs anywhere - sloppy wording on my part. But the PHI operation in this case did not have them (any ideas why) and it may have been fatal. The rest of my post was purely press story so go quibble with them.

MEANWHILE

This item by medic Bryan Bledsoe is well worth a read:

http://www.ems1.com/ambulances-emergency-vehicles/articles/404642-Alright-Ill-Say-It

Includes:
"On May 24, 2008, the National EMS Memorial Service recognized 73 of our brothers and sisters who gave their lives in the line of duty. Interestingly, 37 of those individuals died as a result of a medical aviation accident. Stated another way, nearly 51 percent of the entire memorial is tied to medical aviation incidents. In the last few weeks, we have had four medical helicopter crashes:

The University of Wisconsin’s Med Flight crashed on May 10, 2008, killing three. They were returning following transfer of an elderly patient with an intracranial hemorrhage who later died.
On May 29, 2008, an Aero Med helicopter crashed on the roof of Spectrum Hospital in Grand Rapids, Mich. The FAA observer and pilot got out of the aircraft before it was consumed by fire. They were rescued by the Grand Rapids Fire Department. Jet A fuel leaked into the top few floors and most of the hospital was closed as a result.
On June 6, 2008, Lehigh Valley’s MedEvac 7 crashed into a freight yard in Pottsville, Pa. while en route to a motorcycle accident. Fortunately, the crewmembers suffered only minor injuries and were removed from the wreckage by citizens who came to their aid.
On June 7, 2008, a PHI helicopter from Bryan, Texas crashed in Sam Houston National Forest just a few minutes after leaving Huntsville Memorial Hospital in Huntsville, Texas. They were transferring a 58-year-old man with a ruptured abdominal aortic aneurysm to a hospital in Houston. The patient and the crew were all killed. Interestingly, Life Flight of Houston had originally started to make the flight, but aborted the flight when weather conditions deteriorated. The PHI team launched after conferring with the operations center in Phoenix, Ariz. "

The author goes on to explain why US EMS developed differently to that in the rest of the world, why the system is to sick and who are responsible.

skiddriver

15th Jun 2008, 23:21

Not to mention the Valley AirCare helicopter that crashed in Laguna Madre Bay near Corpus Christi with three fatalities in February.

http://www.flightweb.com/backend/flightweb-acc.rdf

SASless

16th Jun 2008, 02:34

One Gold Star to Dr. Bledsoe!

I found very little to disagree with in his article....he definitely knows of what he is talking about.

Imagine being out in the dark night, landing beside an accident scene, knowing you will be doing a max weight takeoff, in weather conditions of 800/1sm in a JetRanger.

It was bad enough in a Bell 412 or a BK-117 but the thought of doing that kind of work in a 206 scares me silly!

Devil 49

16th Jun 2008, 16:56

I'm only slightly acquainted with this pilot. What I know of him makes him nearly the last pilot that I would ever suspect would be victim of an IIMC CFIT accident. If that's what happened, there's a reason and I hope the NTSB can discern more than pilot error. This one's enough to make me reconsider my opposition to CVRs.

I've been watching these accidents occur since 1969 in Vietnam: Single-engine or twin; IFR and VFR aircraft; Single pilot (mostly, as that's where the action is) and two-pilot crews; military and civilian. You'll notice I haven't mentioned NVGs in that list. That's because I know of only one night EMS accident in an NVG EMS aircraft in the US- the pilot and sole occupant, walked to the highway and help. To me, that's a huge indicator of worth.

Helicopters are not airplanes. Helos operate with a different, riskier flight profile, that's what we're here for. Need an illsutration? The 'sterile cockpit' module of our recurrent training- "The sterile cockpit rule will be in force during all critical phases of the flight: takeoff; landing and any flight operations below 10,000 feet..." That's pretty much all of a typical helicopter flight.
It's a waste of time comparing airplane, much less "the scheds", to helicopters. It's especially an apples and oranges comparison against EMS. I'm not saying the industry can't accomplish a safety rate comparable to Part 121 operations. I'm saying the issue can't be assessed, much less addressed blindly using an airplane operations model: EMS can't expect to operate with with exact weather knowledge (Sorry, Flungdung- METARS and TAFs don't exist for most of the world.); EMS won't always use a surface facility designed for aviation; EMS information availability can be vastly improved, but highly variable runs that require constant decisions are the rule, not the carefully defined parameters aluminum tube guys take for granted.
Pure speculation- In this particular accident, I wonder if the illusion of sound judgment wasn't presented by the consultation with EOC? Sharing the decision process can act against a conservative inclination to decline a run.

There's no substitute for being able to see and avoid obstacles and weather. Being able to see the environment is a single major external difference between day and night flights. It's rational to conclude that if you minimize that issue, you minimize risk from it. The adoption of NVGs will improve the US night EMS accident rate more than anything since the black times of the '80s. Ask anybody using NVGs if they'd rather operate at night without them...

That said, I see other issues the industry desperately need to address. Scheduling night duty shifts is done in complete disregard for human physiology, for instance. And pilot training, while perhaps not a factor in this accident, is marginal if not downright inadequate in much of the industry.

SASless

16th Jun 2008, 17:43

TAFS/METARS/actual weather reports/forecasts of any kind are useful but as D49 correctly states.....there's too many holes in the fabric for complete reliability. Terrain and elevation variations have to be considered in addition to the usual factors.

How many of us use the temperature/dew point spread as a go/no go decision point?

How often would I merely take a peeky poo out the window to check for that wee bit of "haze" in the parking lot overhead lights.....if I saw the start of fog there....no matter the temp/dewpoint spread it was no flying for me.

Clouds are one thing....surface based weather phenomenon is something else althogether be it granite lined cloud or fog. That kind of thing kills folks like us.

I refused an EMS job offer in the mountains of North Carolina flying a BO-105. The operator could not understand my hesitation to fly around in the dark of night in the mountains without NVG's in an aircraft that could not sustain flight following an engine failure when flown at max weight.

Gomer Pylot

16th Jun 2008, 23:58

Weather observations are generally available only at airports. We don't fly out of airports, and seldom even near airports. The closest weather METAR to my base is about 30 miles away, and there will be none for any scene flight I do. It's not the third world, it's simply rural America. You can get an area forecast, but I can guess that about as well as the NWS does. There is a HEMS tool, which attempts to guess the weather everywhere, but it's very inaccurate. I've seen it showing clear and 10 when the weather was really crappy, and I've seen it showing LIFR when the weather was clear and 10. I don't trust it at all, because it's so wrong so often. You have to know your area very well, and know where the fog and low clouds generally form, and under what conditions. That takes a long time, and few pilots have that much time at a location. There simply isn't adequate weather observation and forecasting capability in existence, nor will there be any time soon. You make a decision and hope it was right. The worst enemy by far is the self-imposed (from ourselves and the rest of the crew) pressure to go out and save lives.

Shawn Coyle

17th Jun 2008, 01:32

Learning how to predict weather locally is something that helicopter pilots should be taught, or at least make an effort to learn.
But micro-weather is not something on the official syllabus, which is very heavily FW oriented.
Just more grist for the mill.
(I feel an article coming on....)

WhirlwindIII

17th Jun 2008, 06:43

The bottom line for HEMS is too much expectation with far too little resource. We need to look at human factors first.

Regards and respects to those involved in the tragic accident!

tottigol

17th Jun 2008, 11:11

Flung, WX reporting is widely available in the USA it just needs to be checked.
Not too far in the past, another crew from the same company crashed into the side of a house after launching from an airport WITH AN ACTIVE ASOS.
It was about 2 or 3 past midnight and the reported WX was 400/2.
The aircraft involved was a VFR Bell 206.
The spirit of most of these "community based" programs is to barge in the air at the minimum smell of money, and in my opinion the institution of operation centers is negatively affecting this particular type of operation.
A pilot with such experience ought to be able to make his own call and the operation center's only function should be to veto if necessary "go" decisions.
It shall be very interesting and very important to the outcome of the NTSB investigation to find out what kind of exchange went on between this pilot and the flight supervisor....in Arizona of all places.

TheVelvetGlove

17th Jun 2008, 11:29

NTSB Identification: DEN08FA101
Nonscheduled 14 CFR Part 135: Air Taxi & Commuter
Accident occurred Sunday, June 08, 2008 in Hunstville, TX
Aircraft: Bell 407, registration: N416PH
Injuries: 4 Fatal.
This is preliminary information, subject to change, and may contain errors. Any errors in this report will be corrected when the final report has been completed.

On June 8, 2008, at 0248 central daylight time, a Bell 407 helicopter, N416PH, owned by PHI, Inc., and operated as "Med 12" was destroyed when it impacted a heavily forested area in the Sam Houston National Forest, near Huntsville, Texas. Night visual meteorological conditions prevailed at the time of the accident. The air ambulance flight was being operated under the provisions of Title 14 Code of Federal Regulations Part 135 on a company Visual Flight Rules flight plan. The pilot, flight nurse, flight paramedic, and one passenger were fatally injured. The flight departed the Huntsville Memorial Hospital at 0246, after picking up a patient, and was en route to Herman Memorial Helipad, Houston, Texas.

The accident helicopter was equipped with a Global Positioning System (GPS) flight tracking system referred to as "Outerlink". According to data from the Outerlink system, the helicopter powered up for flight at 0244:11 and departed the hospital at 0246:56. The last coordinates recorded were at 0247. The helicopter was at an altitude of 1,016 feet mean sea level and traveling at a groundspeed of 106 knots. The calculated direction of flight was 170 degrees. The flight was scheduled to report in at 0300. No transmissions were received.

The wreckage was located by aerial search and rescue teams at 0830, about 2.5 miles southwest of the last known coordinates, with the aid of the 406 emergency locator transmitter (ELT). Debris was scattered approximately 630 feet from the initial impact point to the farthest point of the main wreckage. The debris path included the aft portion of the tail boom (including the vertical fin, tail rotor, and portions of the driveshaft), the mast and transmission assembly, and three of the four main rotor blades. The fuselage separated into three sections, the aft portion (including the engine), the center portion (cabin area), and the forward section (cockpit). Following the on-scene examination, the wreckage was recovered and relocated to a hangar for further detailed examination.

The closest official weather observation station was Huntsville Municipal Airport (UTS), Huntsville, Texas, located 8 nautical miles (nm) north of the accident site. The elevation of the weather observation station was 363 feet msl. The routine aviation weather report (METAR) for UTS, issued at 0235, reported, winds variable at 6 knots, visibility 10 miles; sky condition scattered 1,200 feet; temperature 26 degrees Celsius (C); dew point 23 degrees C; altimeter 29.97 inches.

According to the United States Naval Observatory, Astronomical Applications Department Sun and Moon Data, the moon rose at 1023 on the preceding day and set at 0015 the day of the accident. The moon was waxing crescent with 30 percent of the moon's visible disk illuminated.
Index for Jun2008 | Index of months
___________________________________
Zalt:

This particular aircraft did not have NVG's because, even though PHI had already pre-paid for NVG sets for every EMS helicopter that it operates, the NVG manufacturer(s) have made the US Gov't a priority customer, and have pushed back civilian orders to serve the Gov't needs in Iraq. PHI simply cannot get the NVG's as quickly as it needs them.

___________________________________

Others:

Yes, in certain regions, due to the micro-climates that exist, the forecasts are nearly worthless, and the weather reporting stations are not located anywhere near places where they might provide relevant information for HEMS flights.

There are many weather reporting black holes in the South Texas Region. Temp/Dew Point is a major player in most HEMS pilots' go/no go decision, because we often have nothing else to go on. Fog sometimes forms when winds are well over 15 kts... basic weather knowledge is not enough to operate safely here.

__________________________________

Links:

Memorial service- Long, but gives you an idea who the pilot was- (1:59) http://www.kbtx.com/home/misc/19798899.html

News segment (0:09)
http://www.kbtx.com/home/misc/19796104.html

Devil 49

17th Jun 2008, 13:46

Flungdung:
There's a lot of weather reporting in the US, but the official stuff is very regional. It's not unusual for me to go a whole 7 day duty period and only fly to one area covered by a TAF- but, there's 4 TAF stations there. I use a lot of different WX sources to cover the emptyness, from online WX cameras and amateur WX stations, to calling somebody I know and asking stuff like "Can you see the top of Black Mountain?"
The way to get old in this business is to always have a back door, an escape plan from what might happen, and use it- often. I never, ever go where I can't see. Sometimes that means I have to land in a parking lot or field, usually I chicken out early enough to get to an airport, and sometimes that means I have to decline runs for 'maybe" and endure a whole night's sleep.

Tottigol:
You highlight valid issues regarding stupid or careless pilots and I'll readily admit that they exist in EMS. The Huntsville accident pilot was neither, in my estimation.
But, Sir, you ignorantly insult the memory of the individual and all his fellow pilots in community based EMS, me included, when you say "The spirit of most of these "community based" programs is to barge in the air at the minimum smell of money, and in my opinion the institution of operation centers is negatively affecting this particular type of operation." That may be true in some cases, but that is patently NOT the spirit I've encountered at my program of 7 years, or with my employer- the largest helicopter EMS operator in the U.S. The quickest way to become a former employee here is to push weather or imply that a run should be taken, period- medics, mechanics, management (any level, but no vice presidents yet)- you are GONE if you meddle with the PIC's conservative call. I also worked for the accident company in this case, and that rule held there, as well.
The poor, and the stupid will always be with us, to paraphrase. What's worse, even the best of us will be stupid on occasion. Perhaps that happened in Huntsville, once is enough for any of us.

tottigol

17th Jun 2008, 16:17

Dev, if you taaaake the time to read my post you'll see that I never implied that the pilot of the 407 was guilty of anything, au contrair, I believe that a pilot of his experienced should not allow external "judgment" be a factor in his decision if not in the direction of being conservative.
Neither I implied that WX was a factor in the accident.
My reply was directed to Flungdung, and yes I stand by my call in regard to "standalone" programs, you may be the exception but certainly not the rule; I do not insult anyone's memory rather those who continue flying and operating without regard to their safety and that of their charges do.
After working for the same company you do for more than you have, I am yet to see any outstanding public punishment for individuals at all levels who take upon themselves to push the business just that much further.:(

Can we push for CVRs and FDRs in all EMS helicopters?

Devil 49

17th Jun 2008, 19:37

As far as I'm concerned, the media has forever fouled that nest- NO CVRs!

Nobody has a right to release the final screams of terror of a flight crew, as has been done. I don't care if the law's been re-written- the law is whatever is most convincingly argued in court that day. There's too many smart lawyers and amoral, ambitious journalists for me to ever favor the risk of that happening again. Besides which, how many "secure" files have been publicly acknowledged as missing? A CVR file is more secure, how? If I have to sacrifice benefit of the knowledge gained from a CVR, so be it.
Those who have to live with existing installations have my sympathy.

SASless

17th Jun 2008, 20:30

Devil,

Perhaps you may have to surrender if this Senate Bill passes into law. Although it may never happen in your lifetime with the way the law is worded.

Section 508 of S. 1300 would mandate compliance with Part 135 regulations whenever medical crew are on board, without regard to whether there are patients on board the helicopter. Within 60 days of the date of enactment of S. 1300, the FAA would be required to initiate rulemakings to create standardized checklists of risk evaluation factors and require helicopter EMS operators to use the checklist to determine whether a mission should be accepted. Additionally, the FAA would be required to complete a rulemaking to create standardized flight dispatch procedures for helicopter EMS operators and require operators to use those procedures for flights.

Any helicopter used for EMS operations that is ordered, purchased, or otherwise obtained after the date S. 1300 was enacted would also be required to have on board an operational terrain awareness and warning system (TAWS) that meets the technical specifications of section 135.154 of the Federal Aviation Regulations (14 C.F.R. 135.154).

To improve the data available to National Transportation Safety Board (NTSB) investigators at crash sites, the FAA would also be required to complete a feasibility study of requiring flight data and cockpit voice recorders on new and existing helicopters used to EMS operations. Subsequent to the feasibility study, the FAA would be required within two years of S. 1300’s enactment to complete a rulemaking requiring flight data and cockpit voice recorders on board such helicopters.

Gomer Pylot

18th Jun 2008, 13:36

It's possible to get METARs for airports, of course, but they aren't necessarily that close to where you need to go. Calling for weather is a joke since the government privatized the FSS system. The last time I called for weather from a live briefer, I had to give him the airport identifiers for all the airports I wanted, because he had no idea where I was, or the airports near me. He was in a room in Minnesota, and I was in Texas, and all he did was read the same information from the computer that I already had, but he had less. The FSS is completely useless now. The next project seems to be privatization of ATC, and I'm not looking forward to that.

Having experienced CVRs for many years, I'm actually in favor of them. On at least one occasion they saved my job, because they provided proof that we had done the checklist properly. They can be misused, like any other tool, but they can give lots of information about the cause of accidents. Releasing them to the media is unconscionable, of course, and they must be tightly controlled. The rest of the Senate bill is already being complied with, for the most part, by the larger operators. There aren't many full TAWS installations, but you can get a workable version from a GPS. Our Garmins pop up terrain warnings from towers and terrain, and they're not that expensive.

npage

19th Jun 2008, 19:25

This is an extract from a May 08 FAA Fact sheet on HEMS operations. It is nothing new, and has probably been posted already; but supports what many are saying in this thread. Night, single pilot VFR in many parts of the USA is an open invitation to any of these causes listed below. To think that piloting skill alone is enough to overcome the issue, is a mindset that needs changing.

"There are approx. 750 emergency medical service helicopters operating today, most of which operate under Part 135 rules. HEMS operators may ferry or reposition helicopters (without passengers/patients) under Part 91.
The number of accidents nearly doubled between the mid-1990s and the HEMS industry’s rapid growth period from 2000 to 2004. There were nine accidents in 1998, compared with 15 in 2004. There were a total of 83 accidents from 1998 through mid-2004. The main causes were controlled flight into terrain (CFIT), inadvertent operation into instrument meteorological conditions and pilot spatial disorientation/lack of situational awareness in night operations. Safety improvements are needed."

Gomer Pylot

19th Jun 2008, 23:49

Health care in the US is already enormously expensive, and a large percentage of the middle class cannot afford health insurance. Where I work, the closest Level 1 trauma center is about 90 NM. Given this, and the fact that people get hurt at night as well as in the day, there has to be a philosophic decision, whether to allow single-engine helicopters to transport those people, or not. There are risks to life on both sides, and I think the greater risk to more people is in prohibiting these flights. Some people will undoubtedly die in either case, but I think more will die if the flights are banned. In any case, those in authority, presumably the voters, have to make a decision. I'm willing to live with whatever decision is made, but I'm not willing to accept the criticism of those who have no stake in the decision, especially those from the other side of the world. Europeans can do whatever they want, as long as they accord us the same courtesy. I predict that things will continue here pretty much as they have, because there is too much money involved for all concerned. Money drives all decisions in the US, in true capitalistic style. People are going to die, either way. We just have to decide which ones, and how many.

TheVelvetGlove

20th Jun 2008, 01:44

Well said :ok:

hostile

20th Jun 2008, 16:43

Gomer Pilot says: "Money drives all decisions in the US, in true capitalistic style"

And, this system feeds insurance companies, which anyway got a big part of the money. Hopefully insurance companies start understand that we need EMS helicopters, but how climb up the safety. Move part of the money straight to the safety. They already have money for that. Don't they?

Hostile:hmm:

victor papa

20th Jun 2008, 17:16

Where we operate budget constraints are a reality. Approximately 60 000 people benefit a year directly by our service with AS350, Ec130 and PC12. My question remains on the amount of engines issue.

1. We all live in the perfect world and get twin IFR machines. Where are we going to cut to remain within the budget: Pilot training? Crewman/paramedic training? Maintenance? Less staff? Have to do this flight for revenue mentality? IFR twin but no ground support for the instrumentation ie ILS let downs, plates etc and have to do it because my machine and I are IFR?

or

2. I stick to what I can afford(single eng) BUT: 1. lower operating cost allow me to train my pilots and do recurrency checks for night, mountain and IF training every 3 months! Lower maintenance cost means I can actually afford preventative maintenance! I restrict myself to what I am a VFR operation with singles trained to handle a inadvertant IMC situation!

I am all for the ultimate safety picture, but does 2 engines automatically make you a safer operation?

hostile

20th Jun 2008, 17:36

That it is victor papa. Who needs or wants to operate with helos, must also get more involved with operating costs and safety issues. Operators can by all what they needed to buy. Twin engines are just first step.

Hostile

SASless

20th Jun 2008, 17:39

I wonder if there is a study out there in the ether that reports the statistics for helicopter engine failures by phase of flight. That might begin to show the benefit/burden of having that second engine.

It goes without saying that a single engine failure on a twin is less critical than the same event in a single.

I define "critical engine" as being the last running engine on the aircraft as that has the most adverse effect upon the flight characteristics of the helicopter.

If we then weighed the outcome of the "landing" by engine failure and type of aircraft (single or twin) then perhaps we could determine the "value" of the second engine in re injuries/deaths per engine failure and thus arrive at some sort of a decision regards single versus twin.

I come from the school of thought that twin engines are the way to go.

I had several engine failures in twins and always made an uneventful landing whereas the only single engine aircraft engine failure resulted in a safe landing for machine and occupants but it was anything but "non-eventful".

victor papa

20th Jun 2008, 19:44

Agree sasless, BUT which twin? I can operate a 105 and advocate I am safe because I operate a twin. Question is at 5500ft 30-40 degrees C am I safe or am I just over confident? We have never hit close to limits or over exert our machines at up to 5800 ft 42 degrees C. Which twins are really a twin at these altitudes and temps? 139, 332, maybe N3 on a good day and good engines. C++? Should I not rather on limited resources spend it on crew training and terrain avoiding devices preventing human factors and CFIT and keep my singly flying sweet on preventative maintenance and lots of training rather on a twin that might fly away or maybe not and if fly away bancrupt me so I can not reach 60 000 people a year?

The last few accidents have all been CFIT or some form of it. Surely I sould have the choice of equipping my crews with EGPWS, NVG, and training them in the machine as much as possible.

My question remains: "Does 2 engines prevent HEMS accidents?" I do not think the last years statistics proofes that.

TheVelvetGlove

20th Jun 2008, 22:37

Single v. twin again??? I haven't seen many single engine failures lately around here...

I would prefer a stabilized single engine over a non-stabilized twin any day of the week.

Based on statistics only, what HEMS needs right now is a good single engine with an autopilot that doesn't break the bank.

SASless: My God, man- who and where in the world are you operating that you would encounter so many engine failures? Some of these would have to be maintenance related, no?

Gomer Pylot

20th Jun 2008, 22:56

People are not dying from engine failures. They're dying from CFIT, LTE, and other similar things. I haven't seen a fatal accident caused by engine failure in a long time. We need to concentrate on what is killing us, not red herrings. If I'm flying a 206, engine failure during a vertical takeoff is not at the top of my list, it's near the bottom. Running out of tail rotor authority is near the top. The 206L had barely enough tail rotor authority, and the L3 with increased horsepower is woefully inadequate in that area. Putting an L4 tail rotor on L3s would do far more to increase safety than having another engine, or indeed almost anything that could be done. But nobody seems willing to spend the money to do that, even if one accident would cost more than doing the company's entire fleet. Proper flight instruments and IMC training would do even more. Never happen, GI.

Sasless must have got my engine failures. I've been flying since 1968, most of that full time, and I've never had an engine failure. Not one.

victor papa

20th Jun 2008, 23:15

Gomer pilot, my point exactly! I am priviliged to fly As350 B3 and EC130 with KM 150 and 430 with terrain warning and EGPWS and storm scope and digital radio alt. I do not have luxury of IFR let downs, but with my VFR single engine very reliable machine can state my limitations without IFR expectations and be checked more than regularly. Point is wehad a couple of IFR twins going down, how do we prevent CFIT under 135/91 ops?

SASless

21st Jun 2008, 00:30

Velvet,

The twin failures were all in the military and were caused by one engine swallowing part of the engine inlet screen and the other by fuel starvation due to a severed fuel line after some locals objected rudely to being overflown.

The single engine failure was a bearing failure on an Allison engine.

Never trust an engine named after a woman!

I agree with engine failure being less common a cause of accidents than CFIT or Loss of Control after inadvertent IMC.

Night flight is more dangerous than day flight and I would suggest emergency landings in single engine helicopters are more difficult in the dark.

When I speak of "twins", I believe operating the aircraft at a weight that you can maintain flight following an engine failure is part of the deal. Otherwise you are merely flying a single with a better glide ratio than a single with only one engine to start with.

Cat A or Class One performance procedures do not adapt to EMS flying due to the nature of the landing areas in general thus we have to accept engine failures on takeoff until at Vbroc and clear of obstacles will probably wind up with a premature landing. If we limit our weight so we can remain airborne on one engine then the twin really makes sense especially when in the dark or over unfavourable terrain.

IFR currency and actual proficiency with proper avionics will improve our safety record more effectively than adding the second engine to all the aircraft.

TheVelvetGlove

21st Jun 2008, 00:46

SASless,

Ahhh- Bullets!

I don't have to worry about bullets around here. Yet.

Yes, everything is more difficult in the dark....except maybe falling asleep.

FH1100 Pilot

21st Jun 2008, 02:40

630 feet.

That's how far the wreckage was strewn from the initial impact point, according to the NTSB report.

630 feet.

Two American futbol fields.

He was moving right along right smartly, wasn't he?

Why are we arguing about or even discussing the number of engines again?

SASless

21st Jun 2008, 03:54

Engine failures are a concern....LTE on Bell singles is a concern....IMC in a VMC helicopter is a concern....CFIT is a concern....Loss of control following IIMC is a major concern.

Refusing to admit a problem is a major concern.

Shell Management

21st Jun 2008, 15:43

Refusing to admit a clear and demonstrable problem is a sign of an industry sector with a weak safety culture, a risk-running culture and an 'it would never happen to me culture'.

Buitenzorg

21st Jun 2008, 17:24

Why are twins better for EMS than singles?

Because most (not all) twins are big and expensive enough to have autopilots, and most (not all) singles are too small and cheap.

So there. Everything else is gravy.

hostile

21st Jun 2008, 17:35

Safety culture must come mandatory for all.

Twin engines are just start for all operations. Why buy good stuff (TWAS, CVRs etc) in the helicopters and give expensive training for NVG, IR, CRM etc. Then destroy all safety with one engine. I know that engine failure is small chance to have, but it is catastrophic, especially during night. That's for sure.

All this must be very organized and equal for all operators. Hello FAA and money holders! Otherwise someone keeps going below the bar.

Hostile

WhirlwindIII

24th Jun 2008, 21:40

Ah, Safety Culture - the elusive leveler of playing fields! The macro beginning. I agree! But what is it, and where to start? I'd start at the CEO level, and at the historical beginning of HEMS to start injecting some sanity.

My three cents:

First, I'd get the word Emergency and all its conotations out of the equation and simply call HEMS/HEMES, whatever, HPT - Helicopter Patient Transport.

Secondly, I'd get the adrenalin out of medical crews and pilots - it seems some of them thrive on "feeling the rush" of adrenalin they excitedly invoke while rushing to the helicopter "to save a life" (noble stuff, no dispute) after the bells go off .

Thirdly, I'd replace the invocation of adrenalin with well paced and simple good old aviation professionalism, just like practiced in operations that don't have accidents at the rate HEMS does.

zalt

24th Jun 2008, 22:50

Mention of CEOs - interesting.

Would anyone care to comment on the visibility, leadership & safety stance of any of the US HEMS providers CEOs (or equivalent)?

TheVelvetGlove

25th Jun 2008, 00:43

Noble ideas, I agree.

Here in the USA there are still plenty of programs where the bases are timing pilots from the initial call to pulling collective- they are actually giving them a minimum lift-off time to maintain.

What would you say to a program manager who told you that you will be airborne in your EC135 no later than 5 minutes from taking a call, regardless of the weather or time of day? I recently had someone pose that question to me in a telephone interview at a program I was looking at. And they are SPIFR....

One problem is that it is mostly ex-ground medics running the show in the US- they are adrenaline junkies and even bring their scanners home to listen in when they are not on duty. Something needs to change over here. :(

HELOFAN

25th Jun 2008, 11:50

It must be very hard having the pressure of knowing that you could help someone if you make that flight a sucessful one......but who does it help when it isn't.

It must be harder to turn down a flight but its got to be harder to tell someone that their significant other isn't coming home again.

Why push it so far?

SaSless, I agree refusing to admit a problem exists is a major concerm, whats worse?

Denial or having a problem and denying the solution?

If what will help is NVG than why o why won't the gov either defer some of their gear to help the civvies and delay a few or their missions OR

The civvies delay a few of their night missions till they get the gear needed.

Helicopters are supposed to help others aren't they?
Why do we operate them in a manner that takes lives, not save them.

Maybe I am nieve and ill informed, I will admit that. I am no EMS pilot & so I won't try to pretend I am.

I just don't get it........ It's nice to save some one but it's not helping anyone by risking your life (and crew).
Just don't fly if you don't have the gear and training that you need.

If its the company putting pressure on (I imagine they do) then put pressure back.
Losing a job is better than a life.

I would love to do EMS but it concerns me not only the lack of gear needed, or the accident rate increasing seemingly to the same reasons but the reduction of requirements needed to get a job doing this.

Although 750-1000 hrs will get me in, I may just wait till I have 7500-10,000.

Please guys, use a personal check list with your own personal minimums and stick to them like your life depends on it.
One "NO" on your checklist/minimums list and the flight is a no go.
Thats what I am learning, isn't that a practice used or is it simply a great idea but the old guys don't practice it, they just teach it?

:sad:
HF

Fly safe.

WhirlwindIII

25th Jun 2008, 15:00

Interesting last three posts.

I'd say the biggest problem in HEMS in the US is not knowing WHAT problem/s exists - sounds a bit esoteric but the culture, aka mindset, of the overall utilizatiion of HEMS in the US, perhaps world, involving all those in the mix from ground providers to dispatchers, etc. is rush, rush, rush, time is life, and money! From my perspective this may currently be considered fact and requirement but these points are the antithesis of safe flight operations and from my POV constitute THE primary cause of our accidents.

CEOs? I have no beef, except to say they need to shoulder ALL the responsibility reference everything that happens in their companies! Responsibility cannot be delegated or shared, and total responsibility for accidents does rest with the CEO - that's where the buck starts and stops. CEOs do have the power to start a paradigm shift in this industry such that the adrenalin and rush, rush rush, and etc. is replaced with professional flight operations IAW proven established criteria. The starting point of that shift would be to get rid of all reference to the word Emergency and replace it with normal flight operations definitions and/or acronyms!

We can talk ourselves blue about all the nuts and bolts of this industry, i.e. weather, equipment, takeoff times, etc., but until we decide that identifying what has to be changed on the macro level is what will lead to a lot of very worthwhile micro level changes this is going nowhere and our accident rate/s will persist - this sort of thing always has been the case, always will be!

I'd say we need to discuss macro-level ideas as the starting point to reducing the HEMS accident rate.

TOMMY1954

25th Jun 2008, 21:59

I humbly think that twin engines, two pilots, pilots decision not influenced by medic crew information , highly experienced pilots, well equipped helicopters, safe culture, are the response to avoid accidents. For some reason the HEMS accident rate in Europe is much lower than in the US. A medical emergency is allways an emercency even if you want to call it another name, wanting to rush to save lives is normal, but none of this as to interfere with pilots decision making, for a safe flight.

victor papa

25th Jun 2008, 22:07

OK, let me get this straight from the preverbial horses mouth. I have to operate twins to start with. The fact that I am at 5500ft temps in summer from 30-45 degrees does not matter. The fact that I only have 4 airports with IFR capability covering 48 million people does not matter. The fact that I am in a 3rd world country does not matter. I just have to change the CEO, improove the ground facilities to accommodate my twin IFR machines all by myself and increase the 11 heliports at hospitols who can handle heli's(single weight and if twin probably only 6) to whatever I need to gain my 2.5-3 hr range should not matter. As long as I have a twin, be it 139/N3/332/76++, I am a safe operation and if not accomplisheble(spelling?) tough cookie for those who need the outreach doctors and 2.5 hr ferry to a hospital who can handle their emergency?

Wha do you suggest? The USA is a developed country but clearly not thatdeveloped. Europe is great, but look at the amount of helo's/ square kilo. Should I not have the right to protect myself against the biggest ciller with my stable single (very important modern) platform?

No lack of safety culture, justa reality?

SASless

26th Jun 2008, 00:28

Oh, we know how to define the problem over here....defining the right solution is what is tripping us up right now.

We have a finger pointing game going on between all parties and no one wants to belly up to the bar and admit to being part of the problem.

Ask those operations who "time" takeoffs if they are overlooking the risks that one procedure produces.

Ask the helicopter operator who by habit throw the pilot under the bus whenever any kind of criticism occurs....reckon they will admit they are part of the problem?

Ask the pilots who ignore the FAR's Part 135 requirement for adequate night surface lighting and continue to flog over dark and often mountainous terrain.

The list goes on and on....the industry has a problem and it is made up of hundreds of "links" that make up the well known "accident chain".

Listing the problems is easy....finding a "safe" and economical solution is the hard bit.

It is not as simple as everyone upgrading to twins.....as evidenced by the numbers of Twins that find their way to the scrap pile.

It will take a total change to the attitudes and safety culture of the industry to bring about the real change. When partnered with improved techological aids and modern training dedicated to the right issues , then we can get to the place we should be.

WhirlwindIII

26th Jun 2008, 15:13

SASLESS Quote: "It will take a total change to the attitudes and safety culture of the industry to bring about the real change. When partnered with improved techological aids and modern training dedicated to the right issues , then we can get to the place we should be."

Exactly.

Lot of old school traditional baggage floating around in US HEMS that is contrary to safe operating aviation principles. Those have to be identified, exposed, and solutions devised and implemented.

As to the natural pressure of going out to save a life - that's a fine example of the attitude that has to be replaced with simple professionalism. A pilot's job is to fly, not save lives. The saving of a life MAY be incidental to the HEMS pilot's job - it is the province of the medical folks to try assure that.

A vast majority of the patients/victims we fly are pretty much preordained to live, or die. I know, that seems a rude statement but it is based on the fact I've seen only a few patients medical folks have said to been saved by the existence of the helicopter. Dealing with patient/victim morbidity is another story though, and from what I see is one of the real financial/economic reason for HEMS success, and why insurance companies put up with the cost of it.

We want to give our patients the best chance possible, but not at the expense of creating more patients and victims amongst flight crew/s.

alouette3

26th Jun 2008, 17:46

Had to add my 2 c worth. As a current EMS pilot in the US, I feel that there are a few things that need to be addressed by all.
(1) Don't expect the CEOs to do anything. Their first and foremost responsiblity is to the Board and the stockholders. If anything conflicts with that(i.e bottom line), such as enhanced safety tools and higher wages etc. it will not fly-----if you will excuse the pun.
(2) The reason the US has such a high accident rate is because of the risk tolerant culture here versus the risk averse culture everywhere. The reason? The Pioneering Spirit, the Way the West Was Won and all that jazz.
(3) Canada has a similar history(re: pioneering spirit etc) but the accident rate is significantly lower there.Why? Because Canada did not have a Vietnam War. I know I have p----d off a few Vets here. This is not personal. It is about the culture. And like it or not the culture here was set by the hundreds of Vietnam era pilots who moved into the industry and set the standards and who are still out there ----above the law and below the radar. I know, I interact with a few on a daily basis.They are typically, anti-authority(Ops Manual is all crap:yuk:) anti technology(I flew without a radalt for 20 years why do we need it now?:(), resistant to change (NVG's, Risk assesment, Operational Control---pshaw!!:*) and with very little people skills(Get in shut:mad: up and since I have been doing this for so long don't tell me anything!!). Not surprisingly, it will take a couple of generations and ,unfortunately, lot of bent metal and lives before anything changes.Hopefully, the newer crop from the Military or the Civillian side will make the change happen.
Flame on.
Alt3.

Gomer Pylot

26th Jun 2008, 18:09

Vietnam didn't do that, old age did that. People, and especially men, get much more conservative as they get older. They get set in their ways and refuse to change. Not all of us, but the vast majority. What you're describing are typical middle-aged men, and older, and they would be that way whether or not Vietnam had ever happened. I see as many people like you describe who aren't vets, but near the same age. It's just coincidene that they're Vietnam veterans, and what the war really did was dump a large number of helicopter pilots into the workplace. There has always been animosity between the generations, going back thousands of years, and that won't change this week.

victor papa

26th Jun 2008, 19:51

I sort off stand devided on this one. I have flown with ex old war pilots(not nam) and have to respect them for their basic airmanship and nav skills. Agree that some takes the kamakasi too far but man it is impressive to watch a pilot navigating by map only over a flat stretch of land with very little landmarks and hit the spot dead on whether day or night. On the other side I flew with young modernly trained pilots and saw the chaos if the gps fails with a fully functional autopliot onboard with VOR etc. I believe we need to find the balance between the 2. Yes, let us use technolegy(nvg, flir, computers, auto-pilot, etc) to it's utmost to safe lives but not at the expense of basic airmanship, gut feel and most importantly manual nav skills. Training and it's affordability again?

alouette3

26th Jun 2008, 20:19

Gomer Pylot:

The intent was not to disparage the vets. That was not my intention. The whole discussion was on how the culture is so different on our shores and all I was trying to highlight was the fact that a large number of Vietnam vets, returning from the war,did set the culture and the wages.We are still feeling the impact of those years. I speak especially of those in authority.Lead Pilots, Aviation Mangers, CP's and DO's. Almost all of them are of the Vietnam generation and it comes through in conversations with them.For example, the radalt issue was a direct quote from one of our Leads.When my company made it a no-go item if inop. he was livid.And even today he ignores that directive and has busted the GOM a couple of times.
Yet another guy said that the Check Airman giving him his check ride (a younger guy) was not going to tell him how to do things because:"I was being shot at when this pup was'nt even born". See where I am going with this?I bet there is animosity in Europe too between generations but it is probably for entirely different reasons.
Respectfully,
Alt 3.

SASless

27th Jun 2008, 03:50

I plead guilty to have been flying combat when quite a lot of you were not even thought of.....and have looked askance at more than a few youngsters....and quite rightly so.

That being said....I always embraced the notion that I can learn from everyone that I fly with or next to, be he brand new or older than dirt. I learned my trade at the side of some very experienced pilots and made like a sponge even when it was acid flowing.

It is not the Vietnam syndrome that causes what we sometimes see in our crusty old denizens of the tea room....but somethng more along the lines of burn out caused by working year after year in very hostile circumstances such as poor pay, obnoxious managers, and frustration over it all. They know only too well how it used to be and can still be when you get shown no courtesy or respect.

Don't expect to see them get all excited about things and perhaps you might take a moment for some self contemplation and try to visualize yourself thirty years down the road doing the same job as you are now.

Just remember these old farts have done things that legends are made of....and set the standard for those that followed in their foot steps and did it without all the fancy avionics, NVG's and the like. They did it with guts and skill and a great many of them did not make it home.

I would suggest there is a great many of us Vietnam Vets that have been urging improvements in safety, avionics, and training beginning in our Army days. Ask Nick Lappos, Devil 49, Dan Tyler, and the others where they stand on the issues and see if you don't get a chorus telling it like it is and how it should be.

There was a time in the GOM when the pilots went ten years without even a cost of living raise to their wages....think how it must be to raise families with a pay scheme such as that? The prevailing wage in the GOM is where it is due to these old farts standing up to management and demanding an improvement that you young'uns enjoy today.

Respect has to be earned.....it doesn't come along with a title.

Shawn Coyle

27th Jun 2008, 10:19

SASless - you're right that many of the vets have been very proactive and successful in improving things.
Unfortunately, all it takes is a few anal-retentive types to given them all a bad name and often hold back a lot of the attempts at progress by the others.

Devil 49

27th Jun 2008, 12:51

alouette3-
Try this on for size-
"I work with a (fill in the blank), and he (fill in the blank) just like all those (fill in the blank)!"

The beauty of your argument, statement, or whatever, is that you can fill in the blank with any statement whatsoever, and it makes as much sense...

We Vietnam vets have been blamed for being both anti-authority and being "yes men", sometimes in the same breath by the intellectually lazy and/or stupid. "It ain't nothin' but a thang", I'm used to it.

The individual(s) you cite are just that, individuals. I'm sorry that y'all have to work with such an imperfect collection of human beings, them and you. Me, and most professionals I know, try to generate an atmosphere of mutual respect and learning on the job. It's a trick one learns in combat, or with experience in life. That, and honoring the conditions of employment- that, is the GOM, OPS Specs, etc- are aspects of the profession that make a professional truly a "professional". I am a professional and a lazy barsad- you know how "we" are- I find it makes my job a lot easier to do so. I'm experienced, capable and comfortable in far worse conditions than those I'm limited to by condition of employment.

As to the twin, IFR, etc. arguments- US EMS aircraft, regardless of type, generally come to grief in the same conditions and at about the same rate as VFR singles. Conspicuous by the lack are NVG equipped aircraft. The pilot is the single largest failure point in EMS accidents. Helping the pilot see and avoid is as effective at nights as it is in daytime.

alouette3

27th Jun 2008, 13:27

I knew I was going to get into trouble with this!! Me and my big mouth!!
Devil 49 SASless et al.
I would like to reiterate that the whole thread was not about the vets in general. We all know perfect rotters in all generations as we do great guys too.The point is not about respect or the lack thereof. It is about the culture.
If you have one bad apple in a position of authority, he sets the tone and the culture.Can't deny that. All I am saying is because of the experience and seniority some of these gentlemen have the power to make changes for the better and they resist it with one argument alone: 'I have done this a long time, seen worse, came out of it don't see the need for it'. That is the frustration for us "younger" types.
Anyway, that will be the last I will say on the subject to avoid ruffling anymore feathers.
Alt3.

zalt

27th Jun 2008, 14:20

Air Evac helicopter crashes near Prescott, crew OK - Phoenix Arizona news, breaking news, local news, weather radar, traffic from ABC15 News | ABC15.com (http://www.abc15.com/news/local/story.aspx?content_id=a3b8a1b8-5f07-4f6f-ab09-56e9ff29e446)

ron-powell

27th Jun 2008, 14:25

Zalt:

You beat me to it.

Air Evac helicopter crashes near Prescott, crew OK - Phoenix Arizona news, breaking news, local news, weather radar, traffic from ABC15 News | ABC15.com (http://www.abc15.com/news/local/story.aspx?content_id=a3b8a1b8-5f07-4f6f-ab09-56e9ff29e446)

Long link so you might have to cut and paste.

We hear it was a brownout. Crew OK.

WhirlwindIII

27th Jun 2008, 15:31

Not so fast Alt 3 ... you don't get off that easy! I'm not a happy camper. Your post was offensive and I think you owe an apology!

You mentioned in your characterization we Vietnam helo pilot types had " "very little people skills(Get in shut:mad: up and since I have been doing this for so long don't tell me anything!!)." " Sorry-oh chap! This is where you and a mirror need the very ponder about people skills, or is it posting skills, or attitude?

On the front side of being in this industry we RVN era helicopter pilots endured what we did, and helped build an industry for ourselves and folks like you (I assume you fly helicopters for a living), but on the back side I guarantee we won't put up with stuff like you mentioned in person.

Try having a personal go, face to face, like that to a real RVN helo vet and see how things develop. I suspect you will be out-classed and out-intellectualized in a heart beat - but of course you might not notice that either, considering " "I knew I was going to get into trouble with this!! Me and my big mouth!!" " If you knew you were going to get in trouble I'd say that puts you in the league of the mischaracterization you proferred.

What goes around, comes around!

havoc

27th Jun 2008, 16:42

12 News - arizona daily news - arizona headline news - phoenix news - local news (http://www.azcentral.com/12news/)

alouette3

27th Jun 2008, 16:52

WWIII:

Your points are well taken. I do see how my posts can be deemed offensive. I apologize. No strings attached.
Rather than get into another discussion about my abilities vs. anyone else's and derail this thread completely, I will retreat from this discussion.My final thought in my defence: I was trying to establish the reasons for a risk tolerant culture here.However, I can see that it was completely misconstrued.
Anyway, apologies, again ,to one and all.
Alt3

zalt

27th Jun 2008, 17:03

http://www.azfamily.com/sharedcontent/newslink/thumbnail/www.azfamily.com/0826/20080627_730amashforkcrash_4_9284-t240.jpg

http://www.azfamily.com/images/slideshow/062708_ashforkcrash/images/20080627_7amashforkcrash%20003_0003.jpg

http://www.azfamily.com/images/slideshow/062708_ashforkcrash/images/20080627_7amashforkcrash%20003_0010.jpg

This is how PHI's Air Evac membership service is sold:

Air Evac Air Ambulance Membership Program is about having some piece-of- mind for you and your loved ones. No one ever knows when one of life's tragedies will happen. We have seen many unfortunate life experiences happen with people just like me and you.

SASless

27th Jun 2008, 17:57

Alouette,

No offense taken and your point about "problem" people is valid. As you might gather that seems to be a perception on the other side of the teeter totter of life.

As you will find upon a second reading, the squawk was about the "broad brush" that splashed a bit of paint about the place where a finer brush would have done the job.

I am sure you had no intent to ruffle molting feathers and had a serious point to make. It would appear all of us have encountered what we perceive to be problematic personalities in the cockpit.

Now for a penance....seek out a Vietnam Vet....tell him you are glad to see him home safe....and buy him a pint or two. Show him some wide eyed admiration and listen to his war stories. Those are the ones that start off with "...and there I was... or now this ain't no s**t!" instead of "Once upon a time....".

Hanger flying is the cheapest way of finding gems to cherish and hold until the time when you need them. You have to admit a pilot who has been doing this since the late 60's or early '70's must know something or they would not still be around to be a pain in the butt.

alouette3

27th Jun 2008, 18:20

SASless:

Thanks for understanding the whole point.
As for penance---I do that already. Like I said, I work alongside quite a few of them.Barring my frustration on their mindset, they are my good friends.Having read the books (Chickenhawk etc.)several times over,it is fascinating to listen to hangar stories from them.My mentor in the EMS business is a vet.I have the greatest respect for him and I learned all my safety attitudes for this job from him.Go figure.
In addition at PR's and such, there will always be a couple of guys who show up, introduce themselves as having flown in Vietnam either as door gunners or pilots or having worked on the machines.I always shake his hand, give him my card, ask him to give a call when he is in town next and offer him a ride/tour.I always thank them for thie service and express happiness that they made it back safe. So ,as you can see, it is not a lack of respect that I have.But you are correct, the paint brush was a bit too wide.
Thanks again.
Alt3.

havoc

27th Jun 2008, 18:20

Zalt,

The membership drive has nothing to do with what happened, start a new thread for that discussion.

We are committed to providing consistent, safe, reliable helicopter service anywhere in the world. Thats how CHC describes its operations on its website. Its all relative being they had a fatal crash one in South America not to long ago. I am sure there are countless other examples of the same.

I am not a PHI pilot nor one that works for a company that does memberships.

WhirlwindIII

27th Jun 2008, 21:05

Alt 3

You're a good man! Check out The Price of Exit by Tom Marshall - that was my class, 70-5.

alouette3

27th Jun 2008, 21:17

WWIII
Thanks.
Already in my personal library.
Alt3

SASless

27th Jun 2008, 22:19

LZ Lolo was another one of those places "young men" got to prove what they were made of. Can you count the downed Huey's?

http://www.174ahc.org/images/lolo1.jpg

This link discusses the losses at Lolo.

Google Image Result for http://www.174ahc.org/images/lolo3.jpg (http://www.google.com/imgres?imgurl=http://www.174ahc.org/images/lolo3.jpg&imgrefurl=http://www.174ahc.org/lolo-pix.htm&h=607&w=888&sz=220&tbnid=qZZ0t04t26wJ::&tbnh=100&tbnw=146&prev=/images%3Fq%3DLZ%2BLolo,%2Bphotographs&sa=X&oi=image_result&resnum=1&ct=image&cd=1)

Overdrive

28th Jun 2008, 14:54

Great stuff SASless... rather them than me: respect.

WhirlwindIII

28th Jun 2008, 15:18

Common RVN mythology dispelled:

New Page 1 (http://www.68thahc.com/K_Vietnam_Facts__Truth_and_Myths-02.htm)

A worthwhile look.

SASless

29th Jun 2008, 19:23

Close call last night for another EMS crew during a flight that resulted in a bit of IIMC due weather. Hopefully, the crew and operator will share the information with the rest of the industry and do a "Lessons Learned" analysis with a view towards determining what caused the event and thus be able to look for ways to improve their situation.

I am very glad to hear all are safe and well this morning.

alouette3

29th Jun 2008, 20:51

This has been dicussed earlier here. But it is worthwhile talking about again.
What would the ideal schedule be for a HEMS pilot(US)? I know, everyone has his or her favorite schedule ( 3 days/4 nights or 7 days/7 off/7 nights etc.).There is a lot of chatter going on nowadays in the NTSB and the FAA over fatigue in airline pilots. I wonder if it is time to draw somebody's attention to fatigue issues in our industry?
This has been discussed on other forums (notably JH).I am hoping this discussion will be more civilized and possibly more scientific and thought provoking.
Alt3.

SASless

29th Jun 2008, 21:00

Devil 49 has posted about the scheduling problem in the past and seems to have done a bit of research into the matter as his views seem very well founded.

Compound the risks of night flying doing EMS and pilot fatique must be considered a contributing factor in many of the crashes.

I have found myself "waking up" on the way back in from a scene...and wondering if I had in fact gone to sleep or just drifted off mentally and thinking I had been sleeping. That usually was about night five of seven.

alouette3

29th Jun 2008, 21:11

SASless :

I hope Devil49 chimes in.The other aspect I forgot to add is:would it make a difference to have an extende period of rest if say one begins or ends a flight after midnight?
Alt3.

WhirlwindIII

29th Jun 2008, 22:11

From what I see too many pilots overestimate their wakefulness at times, and underestimate their need for sleep prior to reporting for a night shift.

I have to get @6 hours minimum sleep during the day prior to night shift and I have stay awake/alert all night in order to function comfortably when the bell goes off. If I go to sleep during a shift it takes a long time to wake up, and that is usually half way to wherever, so I don't do it. I figure if I'm at work I stay awake and at least do something to keep me brain engaged.

havoc

30th Jun 2008, 00:05

Reported that Classic Lifeguard and Guardian had a midair, unknown on surviors.

tottigol

30th Jun 2008, 01:16

Two EMS helicopters collide near Flagstaff, at least seven fatalities.
As reported by CNN.com

A prayer for their souls.

SASless

1st Jul 2008, 21:13

A Life Link Bell 407 encountered IMC conditions the other night. Cloud base was about 1400 AGL and visibility was four to seven miles with rain showers. The aircraft was in an area of very few ground lights south of Duluth, MN.

The pilot engaged the autopilot but somehow the aircraft wound up in a very steep bank within fifty feet of the trees when the pilot was able to regain control as visual reference to the ground was re-gained.

It is believed company IIMC procedures were not followed as published.

Hopefully, a full review of the event will be done and lessons learned implemented. Anyone care to guess what chance that will be done?

My bet is it will be thrown completely into the pilot's lap and not one peep about the other links in the chain that led to this near disaster will be heard. Which will be just like it failed to happen in a previous crash of a Bell 412 that killed all four crew members a few years ago.

Shawn Coyle

1st Jul 2008, 21:45

Why wasn't the autopilot on before he went IMC??
If you don't use it every day, all the time, you'll be surprised when you do use it!

Gomer Pylot

2nd Jul 2008, 03:13

I have to agree with Shawn. We're all creatures of habit, and we do what we're used to doing. I try to do things the same way all the time, and using the autopilot needs to be automatic. If you're not used to doing it, then it becomes a bigger deal than it should be to get it working.

OBX Lifeguard

2nd Jul 2008, 03:25

I have been operating a BK-117 in an air ambulance capacity in a coastal environment for 19 years. I have to say with the proliferation of awos and asos the current 'snapshot' of current weather is vastly improved over that of 19 years ago and taken together with the 2 stations in our area that offer TAFs a pretty good overall view can be gained. But, weather is neither static nor homogeneous and therein lies the problem. I have gone inadvertent IMC when the lowest ceiling forecast was 2,000 feet and have shot an ILS breaking out at 300 feet when the ceilings were forecast above 1200.

Our minimums here are 600/ 2 1/2 day and 1200 and 3 night and we still have 3-4 inadvertent IMC excursions a year total in our operation. The vast majority happen in level cruise flight and at night. Our normal flight is about 70 nm and a long flight is about twice that one way. Many of our flights are conducted over areas with little or no ground lights.

It is my experience that regardless of minimums, if operations are conducted at night, at least in our area, you will encounter inadvertent IMC. With that in mind I have done the following to reduce the probability of CFIT.

I hired only instrument experienced pilots. Two of us come from a corporate flight background operating a twin engine helicopter in 'heavy' IFR. Even so the vast majority of time it is quicker and more convenient to fly VFR in even the best equipped helicopter so all our pilots also had fixed wing time in aircraft like the Citation 500 and King Air. That is where they got the depth of their instrument time.

My pilots are required to maintain instrument competency and take an annual IPC. There is no limit on the use of our aircraft for instrument training. I prefer the pilots fly double the minimum number of approaches specified by the FAA and I prefer not more than 30 days between approaches. I also try to get each pilot some actual instrument time in our helicopter each year if possible at night. I do everything possible to make this happen when it is convenient to them.

Our aircraft is well equipped with a Garmin 530 and a 496 for weather download capability in flight as well as the usual complement of flight instruments. Current plates and charts are kept on board. We are not an IFR service but, short of an autopilot,we equip our aircraft as if we were.

Finally I back my pilots up. Ours is a pilot run system with the pilot being on the top of the pecking order. Input from each pilot is encouraged and solicited. By job description pilots are only allowed to be assigned "pilot related duties". To give my pilots incentive to train and not become complacent, I make sure they are well paid.