7 die as medical helicopters collide over Arizona [Archive]

inmate

30th Jun 2008, 04:04

Not good news and little is known at this time.
Time to think of the families.

FLAGSTAFF, Ariz. - Two medical helicopters collided Sunday about a half-mile from a northern Arizona hospital, killing six people and critically injuring a nurse, a federal official said. Two emergency workers on the ground were injured after the crash.

ADVERTISEMENT

Three of the fatalities were aboard a Bell 407 helicopter operated by Air Methods out of Englewood, Colo. At least one of the dead was the patient.

Three others were killed aboard another Bell 407 helicopter operated by Classic Helicopters of Woods Cross, Utah. A fourth person on that helicopter was critically injured.

Classic Helicopters spokesman Matt Stein said his company's crew was landing at the hospital carrying a patient with a medical emergency from the Grand Canyon's South Rim. Stein said the helicopter's pilot, paramedic and patient all died in the crash. A flight nurse was in critical condition at Flagstaff Medical Center.

"We've been in business 20 years, and these are the first fatalities we've experienced," Stein said. "They were all heroes. They were out doing a great service for their communities."

Stein didn't tell The Associated Press the names of the crash victims, except to say that the pilot for Classic was experienced with over 10,000 hours of flight time. He added that it's rare for two medical helicopters to attempt to land at a hospital at the same time.

Flagstaff Medical Center doesn't have flight controllers, he said, and it's up to the pilots to watch each other as they approach.

"It's just a very unfortunate tragedy," Stein said.

Air Methods officials didn't immediately return calls from the AP on Sunday.

Capt. Mark Johnson, a spokesman for the Flagstaff Fire Department, said the helicopters crashed in a wooded area about a half-mile from Flagstaff Medical Center. The helicopters spread debris across the scene.

"They're not recognizable as helicopters," he said.

Johnson said two emergency workers with a ground ambulance company suffered minor burns in an explosion on one of the aircraft after the crash. The injuries were not life-threatening, he said.

The FAA is sending inspectors to investigate.

The crash started a 10-acre brush fire that authorities were able to extinguish, said Coconino County sheriff's spokesman Gerry Blair.

tottigol

30th Jun 2008, 04:30

"We've been in business 20 years, and these are the first fatalities we've experienced," Stein said. "They were all heroes. They were out doing a great service for their communities.":rolleyes:

I believe they were actually getting paid.:oh:

Anyway, condolences to the families, specially the patients' ones.

jayteeto

30th Jun 2008, 05:32

I served my country 24 years in the military, why not get paid?
Tragic accident :(

ShyTorque

30th Jun 2008, 08:17

Very, very sad news.

Flagstaff Medical Center doesn't have flight controllers, he said, and it's up to the pilots to watch each other as they approach.

To whoever made that statement:
Great, mind you don't trip over and hurt yourself, taking those large steps backwards... :mad:

whirlydude

30th Jun 2008, 09:04

What a Tragic accident i was in page arizona last tuesday on holidays and heard the bell 407 overhead at my hotel . Later heading into the town centre i came accross the 407 landed at a medical facility with the engine still running and stopped to watch it take off . It was full and the landing site looked tricky to get into with electricity cables very closed to the helipad .

bolkow

30th Jun 2008, 09:22

Of course they were getting paid, what do you expect people to live on? Handouts from rich daddies?

Eboy

30th Jun 2008, 10:39

Some photos from the local newspaper . . .

Arizona Daily Sun photos (http://azdailysun.com/shared-content/story_tools/slideshow/?id=51)

ChopperFAN

30th Jun 2008, 10:45

Wow... thats not cool, whats the go with med choppers landing, the hospital must know two helicopters are on the way, dont they warn of it?

Apparently their was a Astar crash just out of Flagstaff... Ash fork friday june 27 , apparent brown out but not confirmed

It was a medical helicopter setup also, pilot is said to have avoided blocking the road and attemepted landing on a nearby padock, no fatalities very lucky Not much of the cockpit left, the pilot was able to help the other crew till help arrived

Sad that the sunday 29 june 407 midair had such bad results...:(

Very close proximity of these accidents and days

Unfortunate ending, condolences to the friends and families

Simon

ChopperFAN

30th Jun 2008, 10:49

Heres link to Astar crash

UPDATE: Medic hurt in Air Evac near Ash Fork crash improving | Yahoo! News | Local Breaking News from AZFAMILY.COM & KTVK 3TV - Arizona's Family (http://www.azfamily.com/yahoo_rss/stories/ash-fork_local_news_062708_helicopter-crash.43da65b1.html)

Overdrive

30th Jun 2008, 12:12

I believe they were actually getting paid.:oh:

Was that really necessary?

A great shame. Condolences.

Capt.Gonzo

30th Jun 2008, 15:21

:{ very sad

KrisRamJ

30th Jun 2008, 17:04

"it's up to the pilots to watch each other as they approach."

That sounds dangerous right there.

Very sad :{

CGWRA

30th Jun 2008, 17:10

Terrible accident. Condolences to the families.

Is there not an air to air radio channel in the states for these aircraft to call our their positions and intended landings and takeoffs when they are outside a control zone?

Gordy

30th Jun 2008, 17:16

Condolences to all those involved.

To tottigol---I understand what you were trying to say, and I think people here have misinterpreted your comment. I believe what you were trying to say is that they are not heroes all because of what they do. They work in EMS for a living. The definition of hero is something different. After tragedies like this people come out and say the "crew" were heroes...no they were not---they are doing a noble service. It was posted on another thread as this:

"This is a job. That’s it. We aren’t saving lives. We are high-speed ambulances. We aren’t heroes. We are (supposed to be) professional pilots. "

Again condolences to the families.

inputshaft

30th Jun 2008, 22:11

I totally agree. A very sad day, but this "hero" thing represents everything that is wrong with EMS in the US. The job is Part 135 transport for 3 passengers, one of whom happens to be tied to a litter. It should be nothing more and nothing less.

When the FAA grants an operator certificate, the public and the passengers have a right to expect a safe and efficient service. Instead, this "just doing our bit for the community" nonsense gets accepted. Then people seem to be willing to accept poor equipment, a lack of control and pushing the envelope to get the job done.

SASless

30th Jun 2008, 23:22

Accidents: 9

Fatalities: 16

How many more this year?

Perhaps the American EMS Industry will finally acknowledge the cold hard facts....way too many people have died...and for what?

What kind of management will tolerate losing crew after crew without taking a major, dedicated, and hard-nosed view that a new and effective safety culture is needed?

Perhaps the decision making process needs to be stood on its head....instead of looking for reasons to turn down a flight.....maybe the process should begin to look for reasons to make the flight and in their absence resort to the default mode of "Sorry, but we must decline this flight.".

TheVelvetGlove

30th Jun 2008, 23:46

It is rumored that neither aircraft was equipped with TCAS.

Air-to-air freq is not being utilized by everyone, unfortunately...

What a horrible waste of lives- but a ground medical crew was able to pull a nurse out of one of the aircraft just before it exploded- I do not know if the that nurse survived.

Ned-Air2Air

1st Jul 2008, 05:09

HELENA, Mont. (AP) -- A Montana firefighter has been identified as one of six people killed when two medical helicopters collided in Arizona over the weekend.

Tyson Runningwolf is a fire management officer for the Blackfeet Nation in Montana. He says 26-year-old Mike McDonald was part of a hot shot crew fighting wildfires in Arizona when he was hospitalized last week with an insect bite.

After having a bad reaction to antibiotics, McDonald was being transported to Flagstaff Medical Center when the helicopters collided Sunday afternoon.

McDonald grew up in Browning but had been living in Missoula and attending the University of Montana.

Dream Land

1st Jul 2008, 05:31

Of course they were getting paid, what do you expect people to live on? Handouts from rich daddies?Hopefully well paid, an extremely important job in that part of the country, medical staff and pilots are some of the best in the world, my condolences.

Ned-Air2Air

1st Jul 2008, 06:56

Here are the two condolences books being put together on Flightweb for those who died in the midair.

Classic Lifeguard - FlightWeb - For Air Medical Professionals (http://www.flightweb.com/condolences/index.php?cid=41)

Guardian Air - FlightWeb - For Air Medical Professionals (http://www.flightweb.com/condolences/index.php?cid=40)

sox6

3rd Jul 2008, 08:54

KRDO.com Colorado Springs, Pueblo - Weather, News, Sports - Colliding Mid-Air: Chopper Safety (http://www.krdo.com/Global/story.asp?s=8582524)

"The chairman of the NTSB says the fatal collision of two medical helicopters near Flagstaff, Arizona is a "major wake-up call". With six dead, his agency is working hard to prevent it from happening again. It was the ninth crash this year involving medical aircraft."

Was last July's ENG collision in Phoenix and 8 deaths not a wake up call then?

"The helicopters, from different agencies, slammed into each other about a half-mile from Flagstaff Medical Center on Sunday. Only one person survived the crash. It will take several months to determine what caused the collision.

Helicopter pilots from Penrose-St. Francis and Memorial Hospital say, given the close proximity of the two Colorado Springs medical sites, communication is key. The chopper pads are four miles apart.
"Helicopters are hard to see, especially flying at the lower levels," said Rick McGuffin, a pilot for Penrose's Flight for Life.

Memorial Hospital is within airspace of the Colorado Springs Airport. When flying inside that airspace, it's a requirement to talk with traffic control. That's in addition to communicating with the two different dispatching centers that keep track of the hospitals' choppers. "

Though that opening statement sounds like the NTSB Chairman spent his morning reading this earlier press report:

OzarksFirst.com - Local Air Ambulance Crews Following Policies to Avoid Collisions (http://ozarksfirst.com/content/fulltext/?cid=29751)

"Local Life Line crew members say the mid-air collision of two medical helicopters in Flagstaff, Arizona over the weekend is a wake up call. The accident in Arizona is the ninth this year involving emergency aircrafts."

Gomer Pylot

3rd Jul 2008, 14:40

It gets really busy in some places. Going to a hospital near a major airport, you have to talk to approach, then switch to tower very close in, while talking to your dispatch, maybe the hospital, the flight service at the hospital, and maybe more, while setting up your approach to a pad with mutiple obstacles all around it, often hard to spot from the air, and the pad can be hard to find also. Hospital pads are the worst I've ever landed to, far worse than any offshore platform I've ever been to, and I've been to some pretty bad ones.

The NTSB stuff reminds me of the midair near San Diego years ago between an airliner and a small fixed-wing. That brought on the current Class B airspace, through several evolutions. The aircraft were both operating IFR, inside controlled airspace, so the solution was to increase controlled airspace. If both aircraft are already talking to the tower, then we need to look at those procedures. Adding more radio calls at a critical time is not the answer. I'm already busier than I like to be, and putting my head down to change the selector switch every few seconds isn't going to help me avoid other traffic.

Shell Management

3rd Jul 2008, 14:49

In that case ADS-B and / or TCAD/TCAS I / TCAS II (http://www.rockwellcollins.com/news/page10561.html)??

Gomer Pylot

3rd Jul 2008, 22:44

I can't say, I've never used any of those. I have used a TAWS system, not full TCAS, but displaying targets generated by transponders, and those are great. The problem with them is that you can't rely completely on them, because if the other aircraft's transponder isn't working, you'll never know it's there. They can help, but you always have to keep a constant visual scan going.

havoc

3rd Jul 2008, 23:20

This has been discussed at our base, curious why NEMSPA had not pushed for it. I will pose the question on their site also.

-AAMS Member Alert-

AAMS Recommends a Rolling Safety Stand Down

Chris Eastlee, AAMS Government Relations Manager

Dawn Mancuso, AAMS Executive Director/CEO

July 3, 2008

The air medical community, the FAA, and NTSB have been working intensively and collaboratively for the past several years on improving air medical safety.

While we do not have the results of the NTSB and FAA investigations on the recent tragedies, we do know that a common element in each of these events has been human error.

This is the single greatest challenge to the provision of both medical care and aviation transportation. Air medicine could be one of the most complex and high consequence arenas of these two endeavors.

Whenever there are tragic events we need to renew our commitment to safety, quality, and the patients and public we serve. We have experienced a number of tragic events in a very short time period. The event in Flagstaff was unprecedented. We have never experienced a tragedy of this dimension. We need to find a way to stop and look critically at all of our operations.

We also need to maintain access to critical emergency services while including concentrated time to conduct a focused quality / safety review that critically examines our culture of decision making and the role of human factors in making sure

Each local area needs to determine how to complete this focused review while maintaining access to emergency healthcare. The term “rolling safety stand down” has been used to describe this focused review; this term refers to any practice that allows for a focused review of safety protocols while still providing air medical service to the community. A rolling safety stand down must be performed based on what is best for the air medical program and the surrounding community; some examples from the community include:

· Areas with multiple programs each covering each other on a mutual aid basis to allow programs to gather staff for review.

· Internal coverage by the program in which one base can cover another base

· Larger programs gathering groups of employees on a rotating schedule while maintaining service.

· Scheduling a meeting at off peak call hours or during shift changes.

The important feature of this extraordinary rolling safety stand down in operations is a top to bottom and bottom to top review of every aspect of our operations. We know that communication is the most important element of CRM, and the best way to focus our organizations on preventing human error. Every employee in our organizations-top leadership to administrative support needs to be involved --communications specialists, mechanics, pilots, clinical staff, physicians, administrative leaders, and executive leaders.

AAMS recommends that each of its members perform a rolling safety stand down, in whatever format best suits your operation, in order to focus attention on safety protocols and procedures, to investigate and develop new practices and enhance existing ones, and to help in eliminating complacency and limit distraction to ensure, as much as possible, the safe provision of Air Medical Services to the public.

One accident is far too many…

Ned-Air2Air

4th Jul 2008, 00:10

The air medical community, the FAA, and NTSB have been working intensively and collaboratively for the past several years on improving air medical safety.

Like that has made a difference. :ugh:

SASless

4th Jul 2008, 02:15

Safety Standown.....have advocated that numerous places and times before.

Critical Review? Now let's just see how Type A personalities handle that notion?

Outside Review....say hire consultants and give them free rein to look into every nook and cranny and then post their findings for those same Type A folks to change the way they do things? Never happen G.I!

Every one of these EMS operations think they have the one unique way to salvation.....and their way is the only way....think not....just ask'em.

Close a pad for being unsafe.....well there goes a third of the hospitals out the window with just that one "change".

Nice concept but I seriously doubt it will gain traction. Anyone care to make a wager?

Gomer Pylot

4th Jul 2008, 14:23

Unprecedented? No. Safety? Hospitals have no concerns about safety, otherwise they would have reasonable helipads. I've said it before and I'll say it again, hospital helipads are the most dangerous places I've ever flown. I've never seen a single one that I thought was safe, and many are simply insane. "It would cost thousands of dollars to put those 200' powerlines around the pad underground!". I've heard that from hospital administrators. They're like all other corporate managers, concerned about the bottom line for this, and perhaps the next, quarter. As long as managers' livelihoods are based on short-term profits, there will be no real concern for safety, not in hospitals and not in the oil patch.

We all know the risks of what we do. Having safety stand-downs is a waste of time, IMO. We were given the option of doing that at our base, and nobody thought it was a good idea. Stuff happens, and we see people die all the time. If you can't stand to see people die, you need to get out of EMS. But you have to be thinking about being safe every day, every minute, or else you'll be one of the dead before you're ready. Nobody else is going to do it for you, and in every corporation I've ever been associated with, safety is simply talk. Everybody's salary and bonus depends on short-term profits, not on safety. Even safety bonuses are predicated on profits, either quarterly or at most annual. It's all eyewash. If you want to be safe, you have to look out for yourself, and commit to doing things as safely as you can all the time.

Shawn Coyle

4th Jul 2008, 15:44

One way to start improving things is to insist on an independent audit of the hospital's helipad.
Ask if one has been done recently, and ensure that the request includes a statement about obstacles such as power lines, obstacles and any other possible impediments to safety be considered.
When the audit is completed (by someone who knows about heliport design and helicopter operations), make sure you get a copy.
If you don't agree with the audit, then write a response to it, and make sure it's sent to all the right people.
Create a 'Pearl Harbor' file, and make sure that lots of others know about the audit and results and response.
Sort of thing that makes managers cringe when they know someone has pointed out problems and they've done nothing to fix or acknowledge the problem.

sox6

4th Jul 2008, 16:05

Perhaps you need someone like these guys:
Helidecks (http://www.helidecks.org/helidecks/helidecks_abouthca.asp)

Gomer Pylot

4th Jul 2008, 16:20

The problem is, that would have to be done for almost every hospital we ever use. I don't know of a single hospital helipad that isn't an accident waiting to happen. They all have obstacles, and that isn't going to change soon. A new pad recently was completed, and it was completely unusable. When everyone refused to land on it, they made a few modifications after months of dallying, and it's now marginally usable. Hospital administrators seem to assume that helicopters can easily go straight up and down, however much is required, under any conditions, with complete safety. How can such ignorance continue to exist? It has to be willful, because even cursory investigation would show the dangers of most pads.

Revolutionary

4th Jul 2008, 21:07

Let's be real here: EMS accidents, by and large, are not caused by faulty hospital helipad designs. Granted, most hospital helipads are crap, but so are high school baseball fields, highway intersections and strip mall parking lots. These two recent crashes in Arizona (Prescott and Flagstaff) are both unique and unprecedented, flukes really, and it would be hard to think of anything, any piece of equipment, any rule, any required training, that could completely and forever rule out the possibility of a rollover on landing or a mid-air in VMC conditions.

But there have been many other crashes this year that follow the now familiar (and depressing) narrative of CFIT at night in marginal weather, and taken together this unbroken string of accidents does point to the fact that there is something fundamentally wrong with the U.S. air ambulance industry. The problem: competition gone wild.

Competition gone wild causes there to be fifteen (!) EMS helicopters in or near Phoenix (an area with a combined population less than half of London's). Intense competitive pressure causes companies to field single-engine, VFR only aircraft, even in areas with often ****ty weather. A complete lack of governmental oversight means that many, if not most, injuries flown are non-life threathening and could have just as easily gone by ground. Commercial considerations above all else causes companies to locate helicopters within miles (sometimes within feet) of a competitor's aircraft, without any regard for actual need. Corporate greed causes uninsured or underinsured families to be stuck with 15,000 dollar bills for transports they did not really need. And so on and so forth. It's really not just the EMS industry that's broken. It's the entire healthcare system.

Americans, bless their patriotic little souls, should -for once- take a look around and see if they can learn something from someone else, instead of loudly (and incorrectly) proclaiming that their way of doing things is flawed but still 'the Best in the World'. As if they would know.

No healthcare system is perfect but evidence from other countries suggests that there will be fewer accidents if you regulate the number and type of aircraft used in EMS, mandate equipment such as dual engines, IFR capability, TCAS, EGPWS etc., limit aircraft use to critical injuries, maintain high training standards and provide close oversight both from within the company and from the government.

We should give it a try. But we won't...

Gomer Pylot

4th Jul 2008, 22:25

There are lots of accidents at hospital pads, but they're seldom fatal. Most aren't widely disseminated.

We (the US, collectively) have to decide what is more important - preventing accidents, or getting patients to the hospital more quickly, and in the process saving a few lives. People are going to die either way, whether we mandate expensive equipment which won't be bought in most cases, or whether we go on as we have been. The question is which will save the most lives, and provide the most economic benefit. I'm not sure exactly where I stand on this, but it's a real question.

Screwed™

4th Jul 2008, 22:58

It's always intrigued me about the U.S. EMS scene.
Taking off in snow storms. Taking off in fog. Flying S.E. machines at night.
WHY? :confused:

alouette3

4th Jul 2008, 23:53

Screwed:
Read Revolutionary's post above.
Alt3

WhirlwindIII

5th Jul 2008, 01:35

Perhaps the bottom line is criteria by which helicopters can be utilized must be tightened up to slow the competitive expansion and inject some sanity. It would be interesting to know just why the recent helicopters involved in crashes were being utilized.

Brian Abraham

5th Jul 2008, 02:35

The way the US EMS business seems to be think I'd rather walk to the hospital. I like our local set up. Job goes out to tender to supply IFR capable twin for X years. Competition for the tender, not for the day to day tasking.

Gomer Pylot

5th Jul 2008, 04:08

That setup would be fine, if someone were willing to pay for the twin on the contract. The government won't do it here, and there aren't that many hospitals which will, and those are used mostly for transfers, not scene flights. The question that always has to be answered is "Who is going to pay for it?". Bigger, more capable, and more expensive aircraft are nice, but who's going to pay for them? In the US, the answer is generally "Nobody". The current system here has evolved over the years, with little regulation until recently. Changing entrenched bureaucracy isn't easy. Another factor in the US is the idea, also firmly entrenched, that any company has the right to enter the marketplace and compete. The FAA is required by law to consider the economic impact of any regulations.

I'm not defending any of the above, just saying that's the way it is. Those in other countries are always free to do things the way they want, as the US will undoubtedly continue to do.

agent 99

5th Jul 2008, 05:27

Twin engine, IFR helicopters with TCAS never crash?:hmm: Problem solved!;)

victor papa

5th Jul 2008, 06:09

Agent 99, I suggest you have a good look at the types and causes of ALL 8 accidents in the uS this year. You will be shocked that the problem is not solved by merely a twin, IFR, TCAS twin.

OOPS!!!!!! So what next? If that is our ownly solution based on our analysis, do we know ban them too and go for medium to heavy twins manufactured after 2000 ownly?

My feeling is even that might not solve it as the type off machine is one halve of the problem if that much. Read all the other forums currently on going and you will see where the BIG problems lie in hEMS(not just in America by a long shot!!)

agent 99

5th Jul 2008, 06:35

I was being sarcastic!:hmm: Sorry it was lost on you.
I agree that the problem isn't the machinery.
Makes me worried that alot of people see a single engine helicopter crash and straight away think that it wouldn't have happened if it was a twin, with all the bells and whistles.
If its bigger it has to be better obviously.:rolleyes:

victor papa

5th Jul 2008, 10:44

Sorry agent 99-got it now after a second read:ok:

Will have to improove my sense off humour that time off the morning.

Gomer Pylot

5th Jul 2008, 13:45

One piece of equipment that might have helped is a simple TAS in both cockpits. With those, I've seen traffic I never knew was there, and while it doesn't give resolution advisories, it is relatively cheap and light. They're used in many aircraft in the GOM, and IMO are worth more than they cost, especially near cities where traffic can easily get lost in the buildings and automobile traffic. There hasn't been a midair in the GOM since they started being used, although that could be simple coincidence. It's a mistake to rely on them exclusively, since they can only report traffic from active transponders, but they're far better than nothing.

sox6

5th Jul 2008, 16:59

Seventh Victim Of Copter Crash Dies - Phoenix News Story - KPHO Phoenix (http://www.kpho.com/news/16793546/detail.html)

The lone survivor of Sunday's mid-air crash of two medical helicopters has died at a Flagstaff hospital here, authorities said.

James Taylor was a registered nurse and was flying on one helicopter that was ferrying a patient from the south rim of the Grand Canyon to a Flagstaff hospital.

Earlier in the week, investigators picked through the wreckage. They found that the tail of one helicopter showed signs that it had been hit by a rotor blade.

The Federal Aviation Administration said the Flagstaff collision was only the second mid-air crash involving a medical helicopter in the past 25 years, and the first that involved two medical aircraft.

A memorial service for the six (now 7) people who died in the collision was set for 10 a.m. Tuesday at the Pine Mountain Amphitheater in Flagstaff. It will be open to the public and the media.

zalt

13th Jul 2008, 15:05

Latest (R&W daily news):

July 11, 2008

Sat-Tracking Systems May Aid Midair Probe

Satellite-based tracking systems from each aircraft may aid the investigation into the June 29 midair collision of two EMS helicopters in Flagstaff, Ariz. The seventh victim of that crash, Flight Nurse James Taylor from the Classic Helicopters Bell Helicopter 407, died July 4 of injuries from the crash. That aircraft was equipped with a satellite tracking system that provided updates on the flight to Flagstaff Medical Center every 4 min. But the Air Methods 407 that collided with it about a quarter mile from the center had an Outerlink system that updated reports every 30 sec. Teams of investigators led by the U.S. National Transportation Safety Board also are culling other data sources. A security camera on the medical center's parking garage recorded the collision; its images likely can't be enhanced much, but may help verify the airspeed and flight angle of each aircraft. Later this month, an NTSB investigator will travel to Hartford, Conn. to supervise analysis of engine control units from each of the 407s at the units' manufacturer, Goodrich. Investigators hope non-volatile memory in the units' computer chips may provide details on collective and throttle position, altitude and performance parameters. Investigators also have information from the crews' communications with their respective operations centers and the medical center, as well as a handheld GPS unit from one of the aircraft. Both aircraft were heavily damaged post-collision, but the Classic 407 shows signs of main rotor blade strikes on the underside of its tail boom.

WhirlwindIII

14th Jul 2008, 01:09

Come to think of it, other than prisoners being flown against their will, crash victims being flown from a scene are pretty much the only human beings who have no say in how they are transported to hospital. Given a choice, perhaps even after becoming a crash victim, I wonder how many would opt for the helicopter.

Given the involuntary nature of this public transport endeavor it kinda makes me think the equipment, training, compensation and operating standards in this business should be next to none in the world, surpassing top airline and corporate operations.

Sounds good anyway!

Gomer Pylot

14th Jul 2008, 15:02

Should be, yes. Will be, ...nah. Not as long as money is the driving force.

Devil 49

14th Jul 2008, 16:17

"Screwed" Said:
"It's always intrigued me about the U.S. EMS scene.
Taking off in snow storms. Taking off in fog. Flying S.E. machines at night.
WHY?"

"Taking off in snow storms." Huh? What? My RFM will allow flight into 'x' visibility, far less than any visibility minimum permitted and far less than a "snow storm", even here in Dixie. My program's air boss has flat forbidden any operation in falling snow, period. I suspect my Yankee friends have similar minimums, equates to 2nd to lightest green on radar. Again, hardly a snow storm.
"Taking off in fog." Well, okay, I guess anytime the METARs reports "BR", we're flying in fog. Minimums vary from 2-5 miles, depending. You're right, that's outrageous. Again, my guess is that our minimums are fairly typical.
"Flying S.E. machines at night." Guilty. How many accidents, much less fatalities gave engine failures caused here in the profit- crazed U.S. EMS industry? Very few.
Next, ALL the stats I've seen indicate a bare arguable advantage for light twins, if any exists at all. Look'em up, there is very little safety advantage in a light twin- unless you count pilot induced engine/system problems, positively exacerbated by twins.
I advise that you not take the media's reportage as reliable.

"Ned-Air2Air" said:
"Quote:
'The air medical community, the FAA, and NTSB have been working intensively and collaboratively for the past several years on improving air medical safety.'
Like that has made a difference."

Actually it has made a difference. It's just a glacial, if not geologic time frame for the process. As fast as the company can get'em, they're deploying new aircraft. Our newest fleet standard for VFR singles is- Dual Garmins, 500/400 combo with a MFD and something called a VEMD, never seen it, so I'm not certain what all it does; Terrain/obstacle warning of some sort (I'll know tomorrow or the next day. I'm being trained on the new suite in advance of our receiving it.); Data uplink for WX/traffic; NVG and compatible a/c lighting; The usual VHF stone age VHF nav radios (NO ADF!!!); Crash attenuating seats all-around; and, well you get the idea, lots of good stuff- better than the IFR twin I was in 10 years ago, less the autopilot.
We've been helmets and nomex for a while. Goggles are being and have been deployed as fast as we can get them, likewise the compatible airframes. It takes time to come up with or overhaul 300+ airframes to fit the standards set, plus the competition is snarfing the stuff up, too.
We have "big brother" staffed with aviators overseeing and waiting to advise us on issues enroute.
Pretty much everything the NTSB recommended in 2004 is happening.

My opinion is that this all helps, but isn't the silver bullet solution. Somehow, we have to tighten up the "loose nut behind the wheel". My pet peeve is scheduling for dummies- Dummies make the schedule, and the schedule makes more dummies, switching casually day to night. We need more peer review, we operate in isolation. Knowing that another pilot will see the sloppy approach, etc., and critique you mercilessly encourages good practice.

Rant mode off, time to review the literature on this new-fangled VEMD thing-a-muh-jig.

WhirlwindIII

14th Jul 2008, 16:33

Gomer Pylot states:

""Should be, yes. Will be, ...nah. Not as long as money is the driving force.""

Agreed. Having some experience inside the Washington DC beltway I guarantee the only way to break this money driving industrial log jam ref: the way HEMS is utilized is to get Congress involved from the pilot level.

Seems a very good subject for a couple Unions!

WIII

B Sousa

14th Jul 2008, 19:34

Just went through all these posts and it seems nothing changes but the time of day. Some here have no clue, others think they have a clue and the rest want to reinvent the wheel or create a paperwork nightmare in hopes that will solve the problem........which is (See and Avoid). Two VFR Pilots had an accident as they either didnt see each other and/or were not talking on air to air. All these links to the accident are free and available, use them and things go well.
The area is such that TCAS is not needed, A Controller at the hospital is not needed and we certainly dont need more government intervention. As it is we have two or three "overseers" who do nothing but make more rules and charge for membership so they can claim things are safer if done their way.
As to the Hero syndrome. Its sad they are gone but they were employees doing a job for pay to make a profit for a company who will pay the rest of the employees. It was not a combat mission and more than likely all would be alive today if handled by ground ambulance.
EMS in the states is not a group of people in a ready room waiting to go out and save the world. For the most part they are trained to transfer Patients from Point A to Point B faster than by ground. Companies charge a ton of money for this service and the competitive atmosphere is enough to make one sick. You can see the infighting of the inbreds on JustHelos daily. Our company is better than yours etc. So much so, that many do not even talk to each other on air to air even when safety is paramount.. probably can be attributed in this case also..
Yes EMS does do scene calls and yes they do save lives, but as mentioned above, the bulk of the work/money comes from transfers.
EMS is expanding at a pretty fast pace, but certainly not at the publics benefit. Its a huge money maker. Its America and thats what drives this country. Certainly not out of the goodness of anyones heart.

ShyTorque

14th Jul 2008, 19:59

B Sousa,

I agree with your post in the main but can't understand your comment about TCAS not being needed. As a user of TCAS/TAS for nearly ten years, I'd be grateful to know why you say this. Thanks.

120torque

14th Jul 2008, 21:30

Do any of the US EMS heli's use two pilots ? I understand weight issues but surely a B407 with role equipment can handle and extra front seat pilot. A post mentioned too much going on when approaching a site for single pilot to cope with - so put two pilots up front. Cost !!! I'm pretty sure the cost of insurance claims / loss of a/c so far this year is far greater than the cost of a second pilot. Hey it could even be a lower hour pilot that deals with radio coms, nav, etc as well as lookout and gets good experience along the way!
The UK corporate market seems to be going this way more & more. Is it really needed - maybe not - does it increase safety - definatley. Even when using TCAS/TAS trying to spot the actual a/c that causes a woman to shout "traffic traffic" can be diffucult - 2 sets of eyes increases awareness.

WhirlwindIII

14th Jul 2008, 22:09

TCAS? Used it 14 years - great stuff. 2 pilots? Just as good as TCAS as long as both have their act together.

More of the same knee-jerk reaction here in the US? Of course. We all know what the problems are but companies just do not respond until there are deaths and it looks like government is going to get involved, which everyone knows is like a bunch of weenies trying to play hard ball but it does get industries' attention. Ya want change? Go to the top - don't muck around in the weeds!

Gomer Pylot

14th Jul 2008, 22:50

There is no way to put 2 pilots in a 407 and carry a patient. The patient goes in with the head in the rear, and the feet where the copilot's seat used to be. No way, no how. You need something much larger to use 2 pilots.

I'll take TAS or TCAS in a heartbeat if I can get it. It shows traffic you would never know was there without out it.

I do many more scene flights than transfers, probably about 70/30 on the ratio. Don't be quite so fast talking about something you don't know everything about.

B Sousa

15th Jul 2008, 01:00

I agree with your post in the main but can't understand your comment about TCAS not being needed. As a user of TCAS/TAS for nearly ten years, I'd be grateful to know why you say this. Thanks. ST, I should have clarified that one. In the case of this accident its pretty remote in comparison to being in downtown Chicago whatever. Its just more weight out here. I admit if someone gave it to me I would use it, but again in remote areas, operators wont make the investment.
They have these things loaded down so much I rarely take off over 50Ks under max gross. Throw in some heat for the desert and restrictions start applying.
Two Pilots, forget it. Nobody will pay for two pilots and most of the EMS ships could not hold them.
We can throw in all kinds of variables, but in this particular case many I have talked to agree. See and Avoid, talk on the radio......

havoc

15th Jul 2008, 04:01

Date: 5/27/08 PDT
Program: CALSTAR4833 Bailey loopMcClellan, CA
Type: BO 105Tail #: N477CS
Operator/Vendor: Own Part 135
Weather: Clear. Not a factor
Team: Pilot, FN, FN. No injuries reported.. No injuries reported. Patient on board.

Description: CALSTAR aircraft was on approach to hospital pad with patient aboard. The pilot had to take evasive action to avoid a public agency Bell 205on a collision course. The Bell 205 aircraft never changed course,therefore it can be assumed the CALSTAR aircraft was never seen bythem. The CALSTAR pilot made repeated attempts to contact the other aircraft via all known common use radio frequencies. The landing was delayed as the other aircraft remained in the area, thus creating a hazard. After many attempts, the other aircraft was contacted and the landing was completed safely.

Additional Info: The agency operating the 205 was contacted shortly afterward and they have agreed to monitor 123.050 MHz when flying in the vicinity of hospital helipads. Subsequently, CALSTAR is seeking support for a statewide HEMS radio frequency. A meeting of all California HEMS operators has been scheduled for later this month to discuss the issue and devise procedures to avoid collisions.

Source: Louie Bell, Director of Flight Operations

Gordy

15th Jul 2008, 05:58

Hmmm seems public safety aircraft are a law unto themselves recently, This is from an "unfiled" safecom:

While repositioning from Falcon Field to the Goldfield helibase, we had an encounter with a sheriff helicopter. We did NOT get closer than 500 feet, however the situation could have been avoided.

We had been based at the helibase for about 4 or 5 days but had decided to re-position the aircraft to a secure airport at nights over the holiday weekend due to the high number of visitors in the forest river area. When we first arrived in Arizona, we had been briefed on the frequencies in use by helicopters in this area. During the flight to the helibase, I called inbound, on the appropriate frequency, (123.025), at 5nm and asked if ANY traffic was in the area. I got NO response.

Two days earlier, there had been a drowning less than 1,000 feet from the base, and the body had not yet been found, we decided to do a slow flyover the river on our approach to the base, to put extra eyes on the river. AGAIN I blind announced our intentions on 123.025. As we were flying along the river--the firefighter in the front left seat pointed to helicopter flying the river about 50 feet below us and about 500 feet away. We broke off and landed at the helibase without incident.

I called the helicopter now above us on 123.025, and he stated he was with "DPS" and that he had heard my calls but was too "busy" to respond.

Bertie Thruster

15th Jul 2008, 07:27

I have worked HEMS for 8 years in a relatively (for the UK) remote area. In my opinion the addition of TCAS to our 902, just over 2 years ago, has been a real 'eye opener' for our flight safety environment.

Our average sector time time is just 8 minutes and we rarely transit above 500 ft. (There are fairly busy military instrument patterns above our area)

In the last couple of years a number of light fixed wing and rotary 'contacts', very close to us, operating from new, unpublished private sites, have really proved the worth of installing a verbal alerting TCAS system.

(It is also a godsend every time when lifting from rural HEMS sites, before climbing through the 250 ft low level military fast jet band.)

ShyTorque

15th Jul 2008, 09:24

Totally agree, Bertie! My biggest "eye opener" about TCAS has been just how many aircraft appear on it but can't be seen until very late, sometimes not at all.

The other thing I notice is how many pilots of light aircraft fail to give way to the right, or take very late avoiding action. I can only assume they don't see my aircraft (which paints a small profile), rather than not knowing the "right of way" rules.

The limitations of the human eye... :8

These days, even by day, I put the landing lights on if it looks like something on TCAS is coming my way, which hopefully does help the other pilot.

If TCAS isn't working, I feel quite vulnerable; not because I can't look out (I do, believe me, I do!) but because I know how good it is, provided of course that other aircraft are using a transponder, which is a separate argument.

Blackhorse

15th Jul 2008, 12:34

very sad. My thoughts and prayers are with them and their families.

God Speed

Clint

B Sousa

15th Jul 2008, 13:40

I feel quite vulnerable; not because I can't look out
ST your not the same guy who stated. My GPS failed, how can I get there??

Ha Ha:ugh:

alouette3

15th Jul 2008, 14:38

Been monitoring the thread and,IMHO, here is why we have a problem:
Read the posts again. Everybody here has a solution to fix the problem "immediately". The problem is the variation.TCAS,NVG, twin engine, two pilots, autopilot,communication etc, etc, etc. If the regualtors come and ask for an educated opinion on what will fix the issue, from 10 pilots nation- wide, they will get ten different answers.:confused:
No wonder we are in the state we are in.Meanwhile, the operators are laughing all the way to the bank.The multiple choice they have is: all of the above, none of the above and some of the above. Guess which costs the least? :EAnd so the 'glacial' pace of change continues------.:ugh:
Alt3

ShyTorque

15th Jul 2008, 14:43

(Sadly, as usual, a serious thread rapidly degenerates into unnecessary personal insults, due to someone with a chip, trying to score personal points and boost his own failing ego).

Sousa, I think not. My first fourteen years flying of military flying was done without GPS, in fact without any real navaids at all, so I'm well able to cope, thank you. I did have to get used to using GPS during my last four years or so, but that was nearly fifteen years ago now.

These days, my aircraft has two IFR GPSs, twin VOR /DMEs, and ADF, but I never switch 'em on, even in cloud, because it's far more macho not to, just like you prefer...... Obviously, when in solid IMC I also fly both engines in manual and the SAS switched off, just to stop me getting bored because there's nothing to look at outside. :rolleyes:

So be a good boy and get back in your box.

WhirlwindIII

15th Jul 2008, 14:53

GPS fails? Use your map, that's what your license standard says you can do. If you can't do that you're in the wrong business.

Public safety aircraft and freq use? 'Safety' obviously has to be defined to them - we have trouble with police agencies in our area refusing to monitor and use 123.025, acting as if they own the airspace. No worry though, I'm told in the US the FAA will be coming up with a HEMS heliport frequency via FCC very soon, and possibly mandate its use - if so, problem solved, sort of.

2 pilots? Obviously a money, space and WAT performance issue - unless government mandate its phase-in. Then the operators will have to sort it out.

The thing that boggles my mind is currently operators and government keep piling the pseudo-solutions, admin and decision making matrices on to pilots rather than improving communications to them in real-time to help answer their questions as ongoing go/no-go decision making evolves, whether on ground or airborne. Pilots definitely have only so much brain power and awareness - there are limits as to how much can be accurately dealt with in a relatively short period of time.

WIII

ShyTorque

15th Jul 2008, 15:17

This thread has nothing to do with GPS, or navigation, so what's the point of mentioning it, except in the context of personal insults?

Those who have been lucky enough to fly with TCAS and use it properly swear by it as a safety aid. Stubbornly and in ignorance, those who aren't so fortunate sometimes prefer to pretend a better way doesn't exist. I think I'm correct in saying that all UK police / HEMS helicopters have it, also many UK military aircraft and for good reason. The police helicopter that I used to fly had it fitted part way through my time in that job and it became very welcome; I'm convinced it saved me on more than one occasion.

This accident might have been prevented by it. Effective lookout FAILED in this tragic case, just as it did in the case of the news helicopter mid-air, not too long back. All four of these dead pilots were probably (not surprisingly) concentrating their gaze on something else. In this case a landing at a helipad, in the earlier case a ground incident. TCAS might have saved ALL of those lives. :(

SASless

15th Jul 2008, 17:25

Shy,

One might also consider the mid-airs that occur in formation flight. In a similar manner, news aircraft are drawn to an event like flies to honey. As they do their work in close proximity to one another at times, TCAS/TAS might not be as helpful as hoped. Once they get close and tell Madam to hush up....it reverts to keeping a weather eye out for the opposition.

What confuses me about the EMS collision is why the receiving hospital was not talking to the aircraft and thus be able to warn the pilots of the other's presence.

I would find it hard to believe one would just fetch up on the doorstep and wheel a patient in the door. That was never the protocol at the multiple EMS locations I flew at or had knowledge of.

alouette3

15th Jul 2008, 18:00

SASless:
It is quite possible that they had different dispatch centers for the two aircraft.In that case a breakdown in intra and inter agency communication might have added to the links in the accident change. The factor of a changed ETA of one of the helicopters(don't want to mention the name of the program) also played a role.He stopped at the airport for 7 minutes to drop off his medic because of WAT considerations. It eventually boils down to the pilots but I can think of at least three or four other people who were asleep at the switch.
Alt3

Gomer Pylot

15th Jul 2008, 18:04

Some hospitals have no radios at all, and the only way to talk to them is by telephone. That may have been the case here, where both aircraft were apparently on an ATC frequency. If the hospital is inside controlled airspace as this one is, you have to talk to ATC, either tower or approach control. Since they were both talking to ATC, the only logical thing to do is increase controlled airspace. [/sarcasm] That's what the FAA did after the San Diego midair, and the result was TCAs, now Class B airspace.

I was talking to an approach control a couple of days ago, and was notified of another helicopter ahead of me, with several calls as it changed direction. I finally saw it, and its dark paint, about 1/4 mile away, just below me, blending into the trees. Knowing it was somewhere ahead, and actively scanning, I couldn't see it until I was very close. Without the calls from approach, I probably would never have seen it. With a TAS, I would have known exactly where it was. I would love to have one installed. They aren't perfect, but they're far better than nothing.

ShyTorque

15th Jul 2008, 18:43

They aren't perfect, but they're far better than nothing.

Hear, hear, precisely the point I was trying to make before someone started casting aspersions on my personal credentials.

If the other aircraft has Mode C, at least some vertical separation can be given, R/T working or not.

Regarding the weight penalty, I've been idling my time this evening doing some research. Modern TCAS / TAS equipment fits can weigh in at less than 20 pounds. Twenty pound less fuel time on scene has got to be worth giving up to help prevent another tragic accident. I suggest you folks flying aircraft without it start to make suitable noises to those in charge.

We heli pilots, especially given the demanding environment we all are required to work in, need everything going for us, not just a half-hearted gesture about R/T procedures or apportioning blame. I've been flying with TCAS / TAS for almost ten years now, over twenty years before without. I know it enhances flight safety and in my opinion, it's therefore a technology WELL worth pursuing by all.

SASless, In a close formation the leader flies with transponder and TCAS on, the others turn theirs off. No false alerts, no transponder garbling.

SASless

15th Jul 2008, 19:09

Shy,

You missed my point I think...even planned formation flight sometimes results in mid-airs.

When two or more aircraft occupy the same small airspace such as news choppers do....they would find the TCAS/TAS alerts bothersome and in all probability would "tune" them out...thus negating their value.

Way back in time....in a land far away....we in the Army had accepted left hand orbits to be the standard when we found ourselves working around a point on the ground. Even if we were not on the same radio frequency, this allowed us to maintain some sort of separation.

One day...along comes an Air Force OV-10 Forward Air Controller who for some unknown reason elected to orbit to the right.....smack into a AH-1G Cobra. The two Cobra guys died...the Air Force guys ejected and were picked up by one of the Army helicopters.

News guys all want a good shot of the action....and thus will sometimes find themselves as conflicting traffic to others even if unintentionally.

If planned formations can have problems....imagine what dangersad hoc events can engender.

Gomer Pylot

15th Jul 2008, 20:08

Well, give me one and let me turn it off if I want to. With the ones I've used, though, there isn't a problem. You can select the range you want, and just cancel the audio if necessary. I don't consider that to be a problem at all, compared to the chance (likelihood) of not seeing other traffic. I'll take more info, and filter out what I don't want, as opposed to having no info in the first place.

ShyTorque

15th Jul 2008, 21:19

SASless, Yes, I agree, but inter-formation collisions should be minimised by a briefing and SOPs, not by any gizmo inside the cockpit, that's certainly not what TCAS was designed for. Having said about briefing and SOPS, my No. 2 once came extremely close to taking us all out in a Puma by not following standard procedures, having lost sight of me during a low level tactical formation, so I know nothing is infallible. We saw the whites of each others' eyes... he also saw the inside of the boss's office shortly after landing, as the boss was my co-pilot that day, to explain why he crossed the lead of the formation from left to right at 110 degrees, having cut a big corner off the route!

I think the case of multiple aircraft buzzing around each other once on the scene of a news job and aware of other aircraft is really a separate issue. You haven't said if you have regularly used TCAS or not, but believe me, if a pilot gets a TCAS advisory warning his eyes definitely go out on stalks unless he's stupid and deaf too. Were those two aircraft in the "news accident" actually aware that they weren't alone in that part of the sky, or were they completely aware of each other but still got it badly wrong? In any event, although some types might allow the audio warning to be muted (mine doesn't) the "targets" on the screen still remain, with a relative altitude.

It appears that these EMS helicopters pilots we began discussing were possibly completely unaware of the presence of each other until they hit. That is where TCAS is most useful, to give an alert of another aircraft before it becomes a threat. It doesn't replace lookout, rather the opposite, it reminds the pilot to enhance his lookout.

I think it is a huge shame that these aircraft didn't have TCAS fitted; perhaps the FAA might consider this as a requirement for this type of operation. By mandating its use alongside a transponder, it would give a level playing field to everyone competing in this market.

It's also a shame that the last sentence needed to be said.