Allowing non pilots to fly HEMS

[Chorbington]

Hello fellow rotorheads,

I was wondering about the regulations regarding non pilots actually touching controls in a commercial flight (hems). I cant seen to find it in the JAR OPS.

I know in most european countries, the copilot side controls are taken out when there is a hems crew menber who is not a pilot or rated on type.

Any thoughts on this and any idea on where i can find the regulation?

Reason for asking is that the company is getting rid of the copilots and rather having the nurse sitting upfront. But captains still want dual controls and teach the nurse basic flying so that they can take controls in case of an emergency where the captain is incapacitated. But i know for a fact, that if dual controls are in, the nurse will probably be doing quite a lot hands on flying.

This is a huge setback to new pilots, i find it humiliating that a nurse gets taught basic handling and gets to actually pilot a multiengine turbine aircraft.

Anyone got a clue?

Thanks in advance.

[ShyTorque]

You don't state which part of the world you're in, but under European rules it's illegal for a passenger to take control of a commercial / public transport flight.

Maybe you need to point this out to those involved:

http://www.caa.co.uk/docs/33/FOD201021.pdf

[Chorbington]

Thank you so much for the reply!

This is in europe, so under JAR or EASA regs. The nurses will recieve a course by the company to learn basic map navigation and how to use the GPS (enter coordinates etc).

The helicopter type is EC135, so it is single pilot.

Is there a regulations or requierement to remove dual controls in a helicopter where a non pilot is sitting? Remind you this is HEMS, not instruction.

[9Aplus]

Please read here: :cool:

My opinion is that "nurse" must be part 66 type rated or at last PPL H rated on type

COMMISSION REGULATION (EU) No 965/2012

of 5 October 2012

laying down technical requirements and administrative procedures related to air operations
pursuant to Regulation (EC) No 216/2008 of the European Parliament and of the Council

Links:

http://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/Lex ... 148:EN:PDF (http://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=OJ:L:2012:296:0001:0148:EN:PDF)
Commission Regulation (EU) No 965/2012

http://easa.europa.eu/agency-measures/a ... aking-2012 (http://easa.europa.eu/agency-measures/agency-decisions.php#Rulemaking-2012)
Agency Decisions with associated Acceptable Means of Compliance and Guidance Material

http://easa.europa.eu/flightstandards/d ... ion01.xlsx (http://easa.europa.eu/flightstandards/doc/Cross%20reference%20table_version01.xlsx)
Detailed list of differences between the new Regulation and EU-OPS / JAR-OPS

EASA Flight Standards (http://www.easa.europa.eu/flightstandards/)
EASA Flight Standards Website

[John Eacott]

It is quite normal practice in Oz to have SPIFR HEMS with a trained crewman in the LH seat, able to set radios/GPS, read charts and generally help in the cockpit. NVD qualified to assist in lookout, too, and duals are never considered an issue as most of them have enough CDF to be a good backup in an emergency.

[GoodGrief]

This is a huge setback to new pilots, i find it humiliating that a nurse gets taught basic handling and gets to actually pilot a multiengine turbine aircraft.

They don't. Like the others said, NAV and Radio it is.
The EMS aircraft I know of are not fitted with dual controls unless flying with a rated pilot receiving EMS training.

[topendtorque]

Most original excuse ever heard to chat up a sheila, must be a good boss.:ok:

[Captino]

What does the POH say??? I guess " if a person, not holding a valid license, is occupiing the left hand seat, dual controls must be removed", something of that sort, one might think. SO check that. Cause if something happens and you disobeied the POH your in deep sh*t!:}

[MLHeliwrench]

Don't forget about the all mighty insurance company too....they may have something to say about duals being installed with a non-aircrew person in the seat.

[ShyTorque]

Passengers aren't even allowed to use the radios under European rules.

Dispensation for most things can be sought but I'd be wary of not doing so. :hmm:

[grumpytroll]

In the U.S. the co-pilot seat is used on many aircraft including the BK, 135, 145 etc. The controls are removed when not being used for pilot training. On the extremely rare occasion when the duals might be installed during an actual HEMS flight, the medic or nurse are instructed to never touch the controls. Also, extra care and additional briefings should be given each time the medic or nurse enter or exit the aircraft cautioning them about bumping the controls.

As for the radios, medcrew are allowed to talk to a scene commander (fire captain, law enforcement etc), or the receiving hospital. They do not talk to ATC under any circumstances. I also found it a great help to have them program the GPS if they knew how and also to tune radios for me if I was busy.

We also had a book containing a picture and description of the many pads and some remote LZ's and they would review that information with us. That was a great help because many times we would fly into a hospital we had not been to and, for example, they had specific approach and departure paths etc. that were required to be used. I also thought that training them on reading the basic IIMC instruction card was invaluable and also some training on deciphering an approach plate for IIMC. Also, med crew can be trained to open up the RFM and read emergency procedure steps as a back up to your actions.

All of this depends on the level of training and commitment of management. I flew in one program that required training in all of these items and I personally found it to be a great help. I also worked with a pilot who absolutely abhorred medcrew from touching anything in the aircraft including radios, books, maps...anything. To bad as they can be of great service, especially in times of heightened adrenaline levels.

cheers

[Colibri49]

Long ago and far away in my very distant youth, our military crewmen (who first qualified as maintenance engineers) were forbidden to touch the flying controls, except to keep the aircraft straight and level in non-autopilot machines.

They were trained as winch operators, air gunners and basic map readers and when hovering beside cliffs, over ships and into clearings or lifting underslung loads, our lives were in their hands.

Naturally we wanted them to be able to take control and get us to somewhere safe if ever we became incapacitated, so we ensured that they could hover and land as well as we could. Our generals were probably aware of this, but chose not to ask questions.

I know of two incidents where our disobedience saved lives. In one memorable case a bullet hit the cyclic grip and shattered the pilots right hand, causing him to pass out from shock. Although the co-pilot controls had been removed to accommodate the ammo magazine box, the crewman leant across the pilot's shoulder and grabbed the cyclic and collective.

After a while the pilot regained consciousness and was able to operate the rudder pedals while the crewman performed a running landing back at the military airfield.

I rest my case, Your Honour.

[S76Heavy]

And how much incoming fire does the average HEMS helicopter draw?

To me there is a huge difference between training someone who is trained to work on helicopters, in helicopters as part of mission essential crew and exceeding the requirement for "straight and level" to zero speed situations to taking someone from a totally different prpofessional environment and allowing them to play with the controls "just because it seems a good idea".

Having flown HEMS myself I never felt that their RT course and map reading made these outstanding guys even remotely close to being able to manipulate helicopter controls. So part of their job was to ensure their pilot was fit to fly and when in doubt, refuse to fly.

The risk of something bad happening when the HEMS crewmember exits the helicopter rotors running at the scene of the incident and knocks the controls is a lot higher than the chance of the crewmember saving the day because his pilot becomes incapacitated.

Horses for courses. The operator clearly feels it a waste of money to employ properly trained copilots for the job. If you feel that you need an extra pilot, that is where the fight needs to to be taken, not "solved" at workfloor level.

[Ascend Charlie]

Specious argument.

If the pilot collapses forward onto the controls, you will be upside down and dead before being able to push him back, hold him there, and then work the cyclic.

[John Eacott]

The risk of something bad happening when the HEMS crewmember exits the helicopter rotors running at the scene of the incident and knocks the controls is a lot higher than the chance of the crewmember saving the day because his pilot becomes incapacitated.

Might I suggest that you shouldn't exit rotors running? What is to be gained by not waiting a minute for the shutdown, especially if the front seat 'crew' is ancillary to the more qualified paramedic in the back?

As AC stated, a fairly lame argument against having another set of hands and eyes to help in the front, IMO.

[hueyracer]

The reason to send a helicopter instead of another ambulance is:
Time.

30 seconds can make a difference-and can safe lives.

The crew on board of a HEMS aircraft are highly trained professionals (or should be, at least)-there is no need to stop the rotor before the medics get out....

Have you ever seen fire fighters sitting in their truck in front of a burning house, waiting for the driver to cut the engine?

I totally agree to the statement that the HEMS aircrew member should not touch the controls...
If the company wanted a pilot in that seat, they will have to pay for one.
If the HEMS crewmember wanted to become a pilot, he could have chosen a different career path....

No pilot should "train" a non-licensed pilot without passing an instructors course before, anyway....

[John Eacott]

Hueyracer,

I guess that we'll have to agree to disagree. HEMS is seldom (if ever) the first responder, and there would normally be a road crew there well before the arrival of the helicopter. They will already be looking after the cas and prepping for transfer to a trauma hospital, so another minute getting out of the machine, gathering bags and joining the scene is unlikely to make any difference.

Your fire truck analogy could be better: apart from the fact that big red truck drivers don't cut the engine unless they don't want to pump water :p

[skadi]

@John:
HEMS is seldom (if ever) the first responder, and there would normally be a road crew there well before the arrival of the helicopter.Disagree! ( at least for germany) The helicopter ist first on scene or arrives with the groundforces at same time in most cases,

skadi

[John Eacott]

skadi,

Thanks: I'd overlooked the excellent ADAC service. My apologies :ok:

[S76Heavy]

@John Eacott: my experiences are similar to Hueyracer's.

Both the doctor and the crewmember disembarked Rotors running, the doctor to get on scene asap and the crewmember usually to prevent others from injuring themselves on a helicopter in the cooling down phase.

We trained our doctors and crewmembers to do so safely. But it becomes anonther ballgame if there are controls mounted.
Flying offshore now I am reminded of this every time we do a hot refuel offshore and one pilot struggles to exit without thumping the controls. And the adrenalin rush is a lot less than on HEMS.

[homonculus]

When landing en scene, there is considerable kit to carry. In addition the doctor or paramedic needs the second medical crew member to help get kit out, prepare drugs, assist with medical procedures. It has always seemed daft to have this person in the front . I always want my assistant with me in the back working with me seamlessly. If he is not he is behind me, forgets kit, and that is the start of a poor resuscitation

I also have reservations about the medical team being involved with flying and vice versa. It effects decision taking and risk assessment. It also effects concentration. I still believe a complete Chinese wall adds more safety than is lost by not having an amateur map reader / radio changer

[ShyTorque]

Point is, if something is not allowed by law, that's all that matters; personal opinion or preference is irrelevant.

Regarding rotors running deplanes; sometimes the medics need to be dropped in a place close to the scene where it's not possible to shut down. I see no reason why pax properly trained and well versed in doing so can't get out before shutdown.

[havoc]

May 19, 2011

NTSB: FAA Medical Oversight "Inadequate"

By Glenn Pew, Contributing Editor, Video Editor


A 61-year-old helicopter pilot who suffered a stroke in 2006 should have received more attention form the FAA, the NTSB said, before an emergency took place on Dec. 29, because the same pilot couldn't move his arm. The emergency flight took place at night during an emergency medical services trip on a twin-engine Eurocopter. No patients were on board. After suffering the in-flight stroke, the pilot called a controller and requested vectors to a nearby airport. He then failed to recognize the runway and overflew the airport. With more vectors, and the aid of a flight nurse on the flight controls, the pilot managed a hard landing that caused the aircraft $220,000 in damage. The NTSB noted a contributing factor in that accident: "The Federal Aviation Administration's inadequate oversight of the pilot's known medical condition."



The FAA evaluates the medical condition of pilots on a case-by-case basis and FAA medical examiners work with the information provided by the airmen themselves. In this case, that combination allowed the stroke-pilot to fly again without any formal evaluation of the risk of a recurrent stroke. The NTSB found that the pilot's records show no definitive cause had been identified as the cause of the pilot's previous stroke. It found that the pilot had a family history of stroke and that the pilot was increasingly obese. It also found that the pilot's physician had discontinued medication "in part to reduce the pilot's risk of a future stroke." On the accident flight, the NTSB found that the pilot had suffered a "sudden onset of right hand weakness and slurred speech" while at the controls. A subsequent MRI found evidence of two recent strokes. The pilot had received his Class 2 medical four months prior.

[hueyracer]

That would be an argument to not allow single pilot operations AT ALL...

In Germany, the doctors take an ECG each year-and even that does not protect pilots from suffering heart attacks or strokes.....

So what´s your point, then?

[[email protected]]

It says more about poor medical oversight and clinical scrutiny by the FAA.

61 years old, a family history of strokes and becoming increasingly obese - doesn't take a rocket scientist to work out what might happen, especially if his BP is high as well - and he had been on medication, presumably to lower his BP.

An ECG might tell you if the heart is damaged, diseased or abnormal but won't tell you if you are prone to strokes.

[Bap70]

Homonculus, in most UK H.E.M.S units, H.E.M.S Crew members/paramedics are a tad more than "amateur map readers/radio changers", they are an integral part of the flight crew involved in not only navigation, but pre landing/take off checks, assisting the Pilot with ILS information and comms with various ground units/control rooms. In my experience, having a paramedic seated in the front does not delay getting the crew to patient at all, as once shut down, we make our way as a crew together to the patient. That said, I completely disagree with allowing non-pilots to fly the a/c.

[homonculus]

Thanks BAP70. We will have to disagree as to whether the medical team should remain a separate but integral unit or be diverted into a multi function role. However your description of the extended aviation role of individuals who are not aircrew does nothing to reassure me.

Turning to the US incident, I think the medical history is muddled as it simply doesnt make medical sense. The pilot may have had an increased risk of a stroke due to family history, hypertension and obesity, but the FAA have a risk assessment algorithm as does the UK. The fact that he had an MRI makes me suspicious that he was investigated after the incident but not before.

The reality is that pilots are more healthy than the general population and have a lower risk of sudden incapacitation. In the UK the CAA is still setting the standard against risks that are some 20 years out of date, and the true risk is now far far lower. Uncle Ian can provide chapter and verse on this. Unless you ban single pilot operations the evidence supports the consensus that non pilots shouldnt fly these aircraft!

[Thomas coupling]

Allegedly this has been tried before. Both police officers and paramedics may have been shown basic manouevres to assist in dire emergencies.
{usual boll**ks about your Instructor keeling over and your wife's dog being able to steer the a/c to safety:ugh:}.
Bottom line is it requires dedicated trng and also currency training for non flyers to fly the bloo**y a/c.
Who makes up these clap trap stories anyway?

Why are we discussing such drivel?

[skadi]

Homonculus, in most UK H.E.M.S units, H.E.M.S Crew members/paramedics are a tad more than "amateur map readers/radio changers", they are an integral part of the flight crew involved in not only navigation, but pre landing/take off checks, assisting the Pilot with ILS information and comms with various ground units/control rooms.According to appendix 1 JAR OPS 3.005 d all HEMS crews in Europe are 2 pilots or 1 pilot with 1 HEMS Crew Member, the latter with additional knowledge in cockpit work...
By the way, in the German Airforce the experienced crewchiefs on the UH-1 often could fly better than the young pilots:E.... but officially they werent allowed to touch the controls!

skadi

[ShyTorque]

By the way, in the German Airforce the experienced crewchiefs on the UH-1 often could fly better than the young pilots.... but officially they werent allowed to touch the controls!

Same this side of the pond. They had more hours handling the controls than the new guys and had been taught by the Sqn Beefers in many cases!

Three of the crewmen I used to fly with went on to be professional pilots (four if you counted CharlieGolf, but he after gaining his PPL wings realised he was too clever to fly for a living, so he became a schoolteacher and headmaster instead).

Another was one of the chief glider pilots in the RAF system. One became a Concorde First Officer and another chief training captain for a well known UK company.

The chap who checked out CPLHs for the CAA for many years, and will be a familiar name to many of the pilots here, was an Army Air Corps observer when I first met him (I think he's since been promoted even further within the CAA and good on him, too).

[homonculus]

We aren't discussing military crew chiefs nor being shot at. We are talking about ambulance drivers flying, or assisting in the flying of it seems IFR approaches. In some cases they are on part time or short term secondment from driving ambulances.

For once TC we are in total agreement - why indeed are grown men (or women) discussing such drivel

[hueyracer]

Doesn´t change the fact that whoever handles the controls of an aircraft in flight needs to hold a valid license (and a medical, of course).......

[skadi]

We are talking about ambulance drivers flying, or assisting in the flying of it seems IFR approaches. In some cases they are on part time or short term secondment from driving ambulances.

I think its well defined in the JAR OPS regulations, how the special trained HCMs have to asssist their pilots. So part time or short term secondment personal should not be in the cockpit on HEMS missions.

skadi

[Devil 49]

In US commercial ops, ONLY an appropriately certified aviator employed, trained, approved, and designated by the operator can manipulate the controls in flight.

[Thomas coupling]

Chorbington has left the building.......and he never said which country was practicing this dodgy business either :confused:

[Chorbington]

I haven't left, thanks for all responses. To this date i still haven't found an actual regulation that prohibits dual controls when pax is sitting in copilot seat. I have however found in the aircraft manual that eurocopter recommends the removal but does not say it is mandatory.

I will like to add, this dodgy business isn't being practiced, the idea is out there, hence why i am looking for regulations to stop it in case the company/captains allow it.

[hueyracer]

As said before-the regulations require that a (licensed and rated) pilot manipulates the control of any aircraft in flight....look for that-this should help you in the first step....

[Chorbington]

I know about that regulation. We all know about that regulation. However, such regulation will not stop "some" captains allowing the nurse to "practice". The captains have stated that they prefer dual controls so that the nurse can take control in case of captain being unable to fly. Question is, when will the nurse be allowed to practice landing? Only chance to do so is during an actual HEMS flight (possibly back to base after service).

A regulation prohibiting dual controls will fix the problem, allowing dual controls but not allowing nurse to touch them will not fix it, as I, and most of us, know for a fact that the captains will want to teach them basics.

[The Juggler]

John,

The distances involved in far North Queensland, as well as the frequent outages in the road network due to weather events, quite often means HEMS are the first responders, with little or no chance of a road crew backup.

[Jet Ranger]

Experienced flight technician/mechanic ... OK, but nurse :sad: !?:sad::=

JR

[Devil 49]

"Chorbington" said:
"I know about that regulation. We all know about that regulation. However, such regulation will not stop "some" captains allowing the nurse to "practice". The captains have stated that they prefer dual controls so that the nurse can take control in case of captain being unable to fly. Question is, when will the nurse be allowed to practice landing? Only chance to do so is during an actual HEMS flight (possibly back to base after service).

A regulation prohibiting dual controls will fix the problem, allowing dual controls but not allowing nurse to touch them will not fix it, as I, and most of us, know for a fact that the captains will want to teach them basics."

The regulation doesn't prohibit the second set of controls, and I know it, but Citation of US FAR

"§ 135.115
Manipulation of controls.
No pilot in command may allow any person to manipulate the flight controls of an aircraft during flight conducted under this part, nor may any person manipulate the controls during such flight unless that person is—
(a) A pilot employed by the certificate holder and qualified in the aircraft; or
(b) An authorized safety representative of the Administrator who has the permission of the pilot in command, is qualified in the aircraft, and is checking flight operations.

Title 14 published on 2012-01-01"

When one or two PICs have their positions put on the line because the practice of unofficial flight instruction has come to official attention, a different light will shine.
I have yet to hear a professionally sound reason defending the practice of allowing somebody NOT authorized by the aircraft owner and my employer to ever touch the controls, ever- period. "Captains will want to teach them basics" is the "big watch syndrome".

Right seat single pilot stations having the collective and engine controls in a more or less shared area with passengers are a constant risk. I can't tell you how many times I've had correct inadvertent collective manipulation or obstruction. The experience means I am constantly defending that one vulnerable control. Having duals installed magnifies that constant risk, especially in EMS. The medical crew is appropriately focused on patient care, which will prove at some point to be the distraction that leads to an accident attributable to the second set of controls. Perhaps that event will generate a regulation (aviation rules are written in blood) and the inconvenience and expense of removing redundant controls will be required.