EC135 HEMS accident in Norway

[GenuineHoverBug]

Media report that a EC135 helicopter from Norwegian Air Ambulance hit a powerline during landing at a car accident site just nortwest of Oslo. So far it is said that two crewmwbers were fatally injured, one was transported to hospital.

[helihub]

http://static.vg.no/uploaded/image/bilderigg/2014/01/14/1389698609737_598.jpg

[jayteeto]

Is this the same unit we all argued about recently

[jayteeto]

Just watched the video from last year, could be the very same aircraft.
Very sad :-(

[skadi]

Is this the same aircraft we all argued about recently that put the skids on a fence to drop the crew off? I think they operate several EC135s in same livery, so might be different helicopter!

skadi

[jayteeto]

Apologies on my grammar, by same helicopter I meant unit

[helmet fire]

NLA are a great organisation. Condolences to the crew and families of the lost and injured who were lost or injured doing what they could for the sake of others.

Landing on a fence has nought to do with hitting power lines IMHO, and like many of you, I have been around enough to know that power lines are absolute killers..... Killers of all kinds of operators including the conservative and the smart.

NLA crews, know that many of us share your grief and are thinking of you.

[jayteeto]

I was one who supported them on that thread!

[jayteeto]

Where exactly did I say they crashed because they landed on a fence? I do this for a living and know the risks. All I asked was if it was the same unit

[GenuineHoverBug]

It is confirmed by the operator that of the three crewmembers, two were fatalities. One crewmember is said to be in hospital with serious injuries. The patient that they came to assist is reported to have been taken by ground transport and he was also seriously injured (from the preceding car accident).

This is the first fatal HEMS accident in Norway since 1996.

[helmet fire]

Jay. Yes, I agree that you did back them in that thread.....which made your posts hard for me to understand. Your posts, intentionally or not, infer that you feel there is a connection, and it is that inference I reacted to.

You have confirmed for me in your subsequent posts that you do not connect the fence landing and the power line strike, so I will remove parts of my post. I suggest you could consider a reword of yours to remove the ambiguity?

[GenuineHoverBug]

There is a short video clip a bit down on the right of this page (http://www.ringblad.no/nyheter/article7101025.ece) that shows a second helicopter (EC145) coming in to land after the accident happened. It might give an indication of the landing conditions. The crash site is in the lower right of the picture.

The article by the way reports that the crew was very experienced.

[jayteeto]

Agreed, done.
Is it the same unit?

[Smokeyboy]

RIP (http://www.vgtv.no/#!/video/76588/tonje-filmet-at-helikopteret-traff-hoeyspentledningen)
VGTV (http://www.vgtv.no/#!/video/76588/tonje-filmet-at-helikopteret-traff-hoeyspentledningen)

[LN-KGL]

Norsk Luftambulanse (NLA) has 10 EC135 P2+ plus one BK117 C2 flying air ambulance missions in Norway. The missions are flown from eight bases in the southern part of Norway (the northern most base is Trondheim), and most probably the crashed EC135 flew in from the Lørenskog base 18 km/11 miles to the east of Oslo city centre. The crash site is 25 km/16 miles along the E16 (Sollihøgda).



https://maps.google.no/?ll=59.992333,10.301512&spn=0.00154,0.005284&t=m&z=18

[SASless]

Very sad news.....reminds us all of the dangers Wires present to Helicopters.....particularly to EMS Crews who do Accident Scene flights.

No matter how vigilant you are....Wires can be very hard to see.

Safety is enhanced when the LZ personnel are very well trained in procedures that assure the Pilot is notified of all visible hazards especially Wires that might not be readily noticed by the Air Crew.

Small wires with Poles hidden in the tree lines are the worst for that probably.

We tend to pick up the Poles/Towers/Masts first then the wires after that.

Condolences to the family and friends of those involved.

[helicopterpilot]

Pilot and doctor are confirmed deceased. Paramedic in critical condition.

Very tragic...

Bjørn (52) og Anders (38) omkom i helikopterulykken - VG Nett om Luftfart (http://www.vg.no/nyheter/innenriks/artikkel.php?artid=10149844)

[outofoffice]

Truly a sad accident and my deepest condolences go out to those affected. NLA does a very important job as a not-for-profit-foundation it is contracted by the Norwegian government to supply air medical services to a majority of the Norwegian mainland.

That being said the video posted above by GenuineHoverBug scare me as it appears that the second helicopter coming in also would have hit the power cables had they still been in place.

Google StreetView:
http://i.imgur.com/iyykyJC.png

Video snapshot:
http://i.imgur.com/MRTuG61.png

[nomorehelosforme]

Condolences to all involved. Looking at the video of the scence wires are visible then disappear in the whiteout as the 145 comes into land, I'm no expert but white outs and wires can't be a happy combination.

Again my thoughts are with all involved.

[M609]

RIP guys :(

This aerial view shows the power lines, and location of a/c.

http://www.trakkemaskin.no/pics/uploader/innfoto_538.jpg

http://www.nrk.no/drfront/resources/img/2014/01/14/c=0,244,2000,946|w=968|105045.jpg

[Nubian]

From the last 2 pictures, streetlights looks to be installed between the first and 2nd picture was taken. They seem to ''stand out'' more, and I will not be surprised if not the pilot's main focus was to clear that, preparing for a low-vis snowy landing causing him to miss the higher span. The poles for that span looks also like they are almost hidden against the trees.

Very sad regardless of reason.

Condolences to the families, colleagues and all involved.

[GenuineHoverBug]

Here (http://www.vg.no/nyheter/innenriks/artikkel.php?artid=10149856) is a video from a different angle.

Does the rotorhead not appear to "wobble" on the way down?

[M609]

Video of the AIBN lifting the a/c onto transport: dagbladet.no (http://www.dbtv.no/?vid=3053506406001)

[MightyGem]

Does the rotorhead not appear to "wobble" on the way down?
Yes, probably due to damage because of the blades hitting the wires.

[nomorehelosforme]

No disrespect to you,but, having lost close friends in crashes, I find that a very harrowing video and won't be watching it again.

Again thoughts with all friends, families and colleagues

[CJ Romeo]

That's pretty bad.


As an outsider, it would seem logical to me that those calling in air support from the ground should try (note try) and establish a safe landing area and advise back via the controller of obstacles/ hazards like this?


Does this happen in the UK?

[jayteeto]

The helicopter is often first on scene in rural areas

[outofoffice]

Latest information indicates that the air ambulance service has six channels for radio communication and one mobile phone onboard. Police have also stated that they tried to warn the incoming helicopter about the wires, but no response was given from the helicopter.

Further, it has been informed that preliminary checks have confirmed the most current version of map system used onboard these helicopters have the power lines in question indicated. However, it still remains to be confirmed if this also was the case for the map version loaded onto the downed helicopter.

[CJ Romeo]

Pretty sad all around that people died on their way to help others.

[maf]

The pilot was a highly skilled veteran with just over 20 years of flying for the NLA. Before that he was an airforce pilot in the 771 squadron.

It just goes to show just how dangerous wires are, when they even knock out such a skilled and experienced pilot.

My thoughts and condolances goes to the families of the two deceased men.

I hope the paramedic turns out just fine.

[almoehi]

You are pretty lucky, when you recieve information about obstacles from the landing site. Most of the time there are police and rescueteams, who not even think about an information for the helicoptercrew:ugh:.

By the way, It´s always a miracle, when we loose a "highly skilled veteran". I have to remember, that you won´t find a greenhorn on an HEMS mission.

Normally, you will see the black cables in front of the white background. Except, you´ll do a very steep approach and you fix a reference point in the front of you to avoid a "white out". In this case, the wires are exactly under the helicopter and for all crew members "invisible".

Very sad...

[BluSdUp]

Time for a change.
When I first saw this tragic news I recall all my fellow pilots that are no more due to money.
Is it not time for two pilots in HEMS ?
I hear them overhead here on the westcoast on the most hidious of snowy nights, low level.
And I think :that is what I wanted to do , before someone gave me a first-officer and a twin, to warn me off,,,. Off,,,anything,,.!
While he gets experiance,,,!
Take as many details as You want, heli-ops will never get safer untill you get a First officer. Get the Government contractor to pay, or We shall pay.
I am tired of funeralls.
Yours Sincerely
Capt B

[jimf671]

Latest information indicates that the air ambulance service has six channels for radio communication and one mobile phone onboard. Police have also stated that they tried to warn the incoming helicopter about the wires, but no response was given from the helicopter.
... ...

Some problems exist in the UK with on-scene comms. A/C would normally be expected to talk to each other on 123.1 but air-ground comms are a bit of a mess. Our emergency services are heavily "infected" with Airwave which is the equivalent of Nodnett. At rural locations where a major incident occurs, trunked systems have been known to overload and fail. Additionally, mountainous terrain seriously affects coverage. Police, road ambulance and volunteer agencies are never likely to get 123.1 and only SAR a/c use Land SAR frequencies. Even if you have experienced heli-ops personnel on the ground at the scene, waving our arms can be the best comms available.


Huge respect for these guys. En trist dag.

Has the injured paramedic been named?

[GenuineHoverBug]

A brief preliminary report (http://www.aibn.no/Luftfart/Rapporter/14-26) was just published.
It is i Norwegian, but with two pictures. One of them showing that one of the wires got wound around the mast and severed the pitch-links.

[M609]

Has the injured paramedic been named?


Sondre Bjartland

www.vg.no (http://translate.google.com/translate?sl=no&tl=en&js=n&prev=_t&hl=en&ie=UTF-8&u=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.vg.no%2Fnyheter%2Finnenriks%2Fartikkel.ph p%3Fartid%3D10142525&act=url)
http://static.vg.no/uploaded/image/2014/1/16/redningsmannen_med_ramme_1.jpg

Pitch links.....

http://gfx.dagbladet.no/labrador/313/313227/31322710/jpg/active/978x.jpg

[SASless]

Was the aircraft equipped with a Wire Strike Safety System (Wire Cutter)?

Looking at the Video's.....it would question if it would have helped due to the very slow speed the aircraft was moving while doing the slow cautious approach the Pilot seemed to be making.

[skadi]

It was equipped with a WSPS, it could be seen on the video of the salvage, the upper part was red.

Photo: LN-OON (CN: 1033) Norsk Luftambulanse Eurocopter EC 135P2+ by Stig Rokkones - JetPhotos.Net (http://www.jetphotos.net/viewphoto.php?id=7464788&nseq=0)

skadi

[SASless]

That makes this all the more tragic.

The wire(s) were quite small....and should not have been that hard to cut....but very hard to see.

[MightyGem]

I saw a Bell 206 with WSPS hit a wire and it ended up with severed pitch change rods as well. They reckoned that the wire went through a 1 inch gap between the top of the cutter and the rotor disc.

[maf]

Speaking of single pilot ops..

The irony in this is that once you got big enough ships, you are required to have dual crew, even if the operations are not nearly as hazardous as EMS flying can be, escpesially in mountainious countries.

If there are any operations that should have two pilots, its such one as this. Clearly, it works well most of the time (2004 was the last accident they had, wihtout fatalities, 1996 with fatalities).

But the question they should ask them self is:

Is it really worth the money saved on single pilot ops when we
have loss of lives that could have been avoided?

[nomorehelosforme]

I've flown as a chater pax with dual crew in AS355 in Italy and with single crew in various machines all over the world, which is fine but I really would have thought these hard working HEMS and SAR guys should have at least 2 crew.

Can't believe a single pilot, often working at night or in very difficult situations is acceptable, surely things need to change, it never seems a month goes by without a tradgerty.....

[jimf671]

I saw a Bell 206 with WSPS hit a wire and it ended up with severed pitch change rods as well. They reckoned that the wire went through a 1 inch gap between the top of the cutter and the rotor disc.

Surely this approach provides significant protection in the cruise but will be much less effective when descending with low airspeed?

[Gemini Twin]

Wasn't the single pilot /two pilot subject discussed at length after the Clutha accident. Seems to me in this case a better investment would be in the development of a simple electrical field detection/warning system.

[9Aplus]

First...
My deepest condolences to all related with hope for quick recovery for Sondre

I am tired of funeralls too,
but in case you put 2 pilots, doctor & paramedic, EMS set & some Oxy
with some fancy nav aids, your patient may have 100 kg or over that.
Wonder, how far you can reach with EC 135 :{ or similar size of rotorcraft?!

[skadi]

For me in this case its no difference between 2 pilots or 1 pilot with 1 trained TCM. They both have just 4 eyes together to spot a cable.

skadi

[Tango123]

True.... A 135 it not suitable for a 4 crew ops. You will need a 145 or similar.

Imho, the most important thing you will gain with two pilots in front, is two pair of eyes which are focused on the helicopter operation here and now, not what lies ahead; which in this case is to go and help someone in distress, with all the things included.

[pilot and apprentice]

Another possibility is that in concentrating on avoiding one set of 'seen' wires, or even just poles, the second set goes unnoticed.

I will second the opinion that having a second crewmember mentally distanced from the patient is a good thing. Not related to this incident, just general support.

Caution, hangar story:

I recall carefully recceing a winter, night LZ with a military crew of 4. We indentified 2 sets of wires and very careful avoided them with all eyes on a hair trigger.

In the morning we were all stunned at how close we had come to a third, very thin set that none of us had seen the night before.

[nomorehelosforme]

I did see a thread on here last year that had a co pilot or winch man stood on the skids purely to observe for any wires or obstructions whilst coming into land.

This I agree is dangerous in itself but seemed to work for them?

[helmet fire]

Two pilots is not protection from wire strike and using a single point event such as this one as evidence is not justifiable.

There have been a significant number of two pilot wire strikes (and even two pilot CFIT). Just in the small backyard of Australia I can think of three two-pilot strikes straight away:
Chinook near Wivenhoe Dam, QLD, Huey near Pucka in Victoria, Black Hawk near Oakey, QLD.

I also agree wholeheartedly that two crew in the front is a minimum standard, but I don't believe that necessarily requires two pilots. The key is in ensuring the other front seater really is trained as a pilot assistant in every sense of the word - maps, avionics, CRM, IFR plates, systems understanding, checklists, performance, monitoring, etc. Not just a paramedic or crewman jumping in the front and being told how to run the mission radio and hold a map.

Norway, as far as I know, were the first to mandate two trained crew up the front, one of three sound recommendations from the 1996 fatal, and NLA have absolutely ensured that that person is fully capable up front. I understand EASA is moving to mandate a similar system??

The second recommendation from 1996 was that they mandated moving maps, and thirdly NVG for all night ops. Much of the rest of the world has yet to adopt any of these.

I believe, similarly to Gemini that a better wire detection/depiction method will be the next step in safety around this sort of wire strike on landing (if you have already adopted the three 1996 recommendations). Focusing on two pilot ops as a solution is a simple reaction, unsupported by evidence that is going to distract us from considering the complexity of the problem and creating a lasting solution that works. But I fear it will sound so convincing (as many straw man arguments do) and so simple, that it will be irristible to the regulators and politicians who don't like complex problems and evidence based solutions.

They want a fix, and want it now! Unfortunately, two pilots is not our answer for this sort of accident, IMHO.

We are thinking of you Sondre.

[Nubian]

For me in this case its no difference between 2 pilots or 1 pilot with 1 trained TCM

Second that. The TCM in this case had 20 years experience looking for wires every working day, so thinking a second pilot would make the big difference is being quite naive.

[pilot and apprentice]

I agree guys, and I did say my comment was not related to this incident.

I still believe in what I said though. Both military and civil, the medical guys were very focused on that aspect of their job. It's reality. No lack of professionalism.

Also, when working as a pilot/engineer, the head inevitably gets divided and switching focus is difficult. Same concept.

A small reduction of risk perhaps. We all have our view

[Aucky]

I'm sure a TCM/police observer with 20 years experience would be equally capable at spotting wires, and very comfortable with other cockpit duties, however in the UK many HEMS/AA units take their doctors & paramedics on secondments from local ambulance services which offer much shorter service periods, and don't allow people to reach this level of aviation awareness before being replaced. No disrespect to the people who are in this situation but the learning curve is steep, and they always have their medical considerations to prioritise. Two pilots offers a dedicated aviation aware team at the front, and an extra pair of eyes if carrying a crew of 4 instead of 3.

[maf]

..And its not a strawman argument to say that this does not prove that its necessary with two dedicated pilots?

An aircraft of any kind can crash no matter how experienced the crew is, or how many they are, so you can easily claim that an S-92 operating to/from SVG everyday might just as well be piloted by one instead of two. Its no safer with two guys in that cockpit?

You know thats balloney..

The whole point with having two dedicated pilots in the EMS ops, is to ease the workload of PF. To claim that this is not necessary is quite an astonishing argument. Are you basically saying that their operations arent that dangerous?

And yes, a TCM do alot of help to the pilot, but it becomes very limited.

However unlikely it may be, what if an EMS unit pics up a badly injured person, and the pilot gets incapacitated in IMC. Will the TCM be capable of handling that situation too?

[skadi]

I understand EASA is moving to mandate a similar system??

Thats correct. EASA rules: HEMS generally 2 pilots, but in specified area 1 pilot and 1 trained TCM.

skadi

[homonculus]

Even if the second pair of eyes is adequately trained and has adequate experience and the issues of CRM between two totally differ backgrounds have been addressed, a member of the medical crew can never be guaranteed to be effective. The medical crew member will be aware of the incident, may well have been briefed about the pathology and will invariably be reviewing in his mind the protocol for the pathology, the specific risks, the possible mechanism of injury etc etc.

Behavioural psychologists have researched this scenario ad nauseam. Concentration on the flying task will always be degraded, and more worryingly the individual often has no insight into this. That is why we operate a Chinese wall so the pilots are unaware of the medical situation as far as possible.

[hoistop]

Skadi,

Could you please throw more light on your quote:


Thats correct. EASA rules: HEMS generally 2 pilots, but in specified area 1 pilot and 1 trained TCM.
skadi

Current version of AIR OPS Regulation 965/2012 says that your quote is valid for night ops-correct me if I am wrong.
As far as I know, NLA has a very thorough training program for HEMS crewmembers, that goes far beyond minimum requirements of JAR OPS 3 HEMS (now Air Ops SPO HEMS). After seeing the presentation of their training program, several in audience half-jokingly commented that getting a CPL(H) is peanuts compared to this.
Regards,
hoistop

[skadi]

hoistop, you are right. Its for night HEMS.


skadi

[Gemini Twin]

Of course extra eyes are a huge help but I've found that if you can see the poles or towers you can usually determine the route of the otherwise invisible wires. Pole tops near highways or accident hot spots should at least have a high visibility finish of some sort. A couple of I/D balls on long wire spans between poles is not a bad idea either. These costs are insignificant compared to the investment in lives and of setting up and operating these magnificent HEMS programs.


I must add that the designers have done a fantastic job on the crashworthiness of EC135 fuel system.


Best wishes Sondre, we are all pulling for you.

[Devil 49]

Wires in an LZ present a significant hazard to HEMS operations. It's an especially difficult risk to manage when the right of way and support towers/poles are not in the pilot field of view View of right of way and towers are the most reliable method of locating the conductors and static lines. I have found that parking vehicles under wires present a useful reference and reminder of the obstacle's presence. This information is part of the LZ brief we train agencies to provide.
The usual method of vertical descents and ascents minimizes exposure to wire hazard seen and unseen, but present a serious challenge when the vertical segment is extended, as it would be in a valley or when there are multiple levels of hazard to navigate. Sometimes it is possible to avoid wires by direct visual observation without other references. I find this extremely difficult with smaller gauge wires, as they present little surface and texture for depth perception, and the stereoscopic physiologic function is least effective when most needed, as one passes the wire altitude.
An extensive vertical is also especially challenging with limited surface features available, as I would expect in the snowy terrain of this accident.

[SASless]

Devil 49's experience tracks with mine.

Key to the use of Emergency Vehicles with flashing lights to mark power lines works only if you know that is what is being done for you and you know which vehicles are the markers.

That brings up the real key to all of this....effective communication between the ground units and the aircrew.

Usually, the Ground Crew have the best vantage point for observing Wire Hazards as their workload while checking for them is the lowest.....and they are physically the closest to them.

Most places I flew EMS, the use of Emergency Vehicle lights were controlled to facilitate marking the LZ (the only white lights showing) and Emergency RoofTop lights flashing only on the vehicles marking the LZ and Hazards, all other vehicles had white lights off, Emergency roof top lights off, and only Amber lights activated on the vehicle. That makes it very easy for the aircrew to pick out the LZ and any hazards that are being marked by ground vehicles.

The one real danger that remains.....is the unseen Wires and the aircrew must remain on guard during the approach and takeoff for wires that might have been missed by the Ground Units.

Most Ground units carried Bean Bag Lights or some other way of marking the LZ even if only some one with a Torch, Wand, or other lighting device.

The real key is training and coordination well ahead of actual emergency flights so everyone is working to a common standard and same procedures.

[BluSdUp]

Been Woalkabout.
What I was trying to say was not spesifick for this crash.
You Rotoheads need to realize That the Owl has a rather specialiced head , sight and sences. , hunts alone, at night. No problem.
You Do Not...!
So why not get a FO in the seat ,that is scared sensless,,,.and calls :SIR!,!:
In Canada in my C-185 I sure could need him, but space and weight and the migty Dollar did not permit that.
That is history,,,.
Gentlemen, stop , think , and take care of Your own.,only then can You take care of the public.
There is plenty of money, after all this NLA is a nonprofit org so good that the Norwegian Government ,Contracteted them to this job.
Anyway, focuson what You as a Profesional Helicopter pilot need for safety,
Not what the local power company can do.
Sincerely Yours
Cpt B

[jimf671]

Nobody will be wires-aware unless they are regularly flying in helicopters. Help from the ground regarding wires is too much to expect.

Terrain has a major effect. Here we have some wires where there is maybe 200m difference in vertical height between one tower and the next. If the wires weren't on the map that would make it a nightmare to work out what's going on in bad vis. There are at least 4 large lines like that in this glen and many more elsewhere. In parts of Norway it must be worse.

Has anyone ever tried ways of making other crew members more wires-aware?

For instance, if a co-pilot or crew medic spent a day with a power company flying wire checks periodically then that would bring a focus on the subject and an understanding of the way networks are laid out that would be hard to impart any other way. Power companies have an interest in helicopters not bringing down wires.

[Non-PC Plod]

There are some good videos available about wire awareness for those interested. This is one I have used before:

Surviving the Wires Environment - General Aviation Flying Videos - AOPA (http://www.aopa.org/AOPA-Live.aspx?watch=V1Mmk4MTpXN7h00NgfJFO8NhsnhULsvw)

[9Aplus]

Training, more training and situation awareness, that is feasible way to go...
On other hand must strongly disagree with:
Help from the ground regarding wires is too much to expect. Ground emergency services, (ground EMS, police, fire fighters)
must be capable to communicate and set up / mark safe landing zone.
Something like in this example:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=APZZbS5r8Ok
(http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=APZZbS5r8Ok)

[jimf671]

... ... Ground emergency services, (ground EMS, police, fire fighters) must be capable to communicate and set up / mark safe landing zone. ...

I used to think so.

Not going to happen.

Even if it does, most crews are going to think 'What do they know?' and just do their own thing. Seen it many times.

To a wet weary copper in the middle of nowhere, helicopters are either black magic or somebody else's problem or both.

The number of 'Ground/Maritime Emergency Service Personnel' who have a decent understanding of helicopters would be about 1 in every 50 on a good day. Murphy's law tells us that it will be her/his day off when they are really needed.

[9Aplus]

Partially true, so we can give up...
or
Finally fill missing content on H pages of this document:
http://www.easa.europa.eu/sms/docs/European%20Aviation%20Safety%20Plan%20%282014-2017%29.pdf

Page 30, 31
While the commercial air transport section of the EASp is organized in six areas within which issues and actions are identified, the helicopter section is lacking a similar structure.

Desired outcome
Establish priorities to focus action to mitigate safety issues affecting helicopter operations in future editions of the EASp

Proposed actions
Make a proposal to arrange the helicopter section of the EASp and seek an agreement with the Helicopter community
from:
EASA - European Aviation Safety Agency (http://www.easa.europa.eu/sms/)

[SASless]

I used to think so.

Not going to happen.

Even if it does, most crews are going to think 'What do they know?' and just do their own thing. Seen it many times.

To a wet weary copper in the middle of nowhere, helicopters are either black magic or somebody else's problem or both.

The number of 'Ground/Maritime Emergency Service Personnel' who have a decent understanding of helicopters would be about 1 in every 50 on a good day. Murphy's law tells us that it will be her/his day off when they are really needed.

Ever heard of a concept called "Training"?

Get the EMS crews involved in the training of Ground Emergency Responders.....it is a common practice here in the United States....done every day somewhere.

You don't have to re-invent the wheel every time do you.....steal from others that are already doing what works.

[jimf671]

Ever heard of a concept called "Training"? ...


Yes, I have SASless. I do a lot of it and I plan some of it too (including several mountain rescue helicopter exercises every year).

Let's look at the territory I know best. Scotland. It's a bit like Norway, but more compact.

3 Air Ambulances helicopters, one of which has limited capability compared to the other two. 4 SAR bases (2 of which are on islands and not as accessible for training), each of which normally has one aircraft available. Maybe just over 100 crew?

There are approximately 18000 police officers, 7000 firefighters, 2500 ambulance crew, 1000 lifeboat, 1000 mountain rescue, and 500 aux coastguard, any one of whom might have to work with those aircraft at remote locations. That's 30000 people who could end up being on some dodgy piece of ground or water waiting for one of those 7 aircraft to turn up, by day or by night.

Maybe around 1500 of them definitely require helo training because their role may require them to be flown in the aircraft. Another 500 may require to help with winching operations. Keeping those in date is a struggle (and the paperwork just got worse). :ugh:

About those other 28000 SASless: are you going to come over here and train them on your day off? :ok:

[SASless]

How many of those are paid staff of government run organizations?

What commitment does the Management of the government run organizations have to providing training? What amount of their training budget goes towards related training?

If you train a cadre.....can they not then in turn train others?

One has to be realistic.....until there is an acceptance of the need to gear up, train up, there will be no progress.

I've taken a wander through Scotland on more than a few occasions....by Helicopter, Airplane, Car, and foot.....it compares to some of the more rural places in my part of the country.

We found a way to get our Fire Brigades....both full time and Volunteer trained to the extent the system works. It is a constant effort to keep enough folks trained and current to provide the service....but we at least acknowledge the need to do so and work at getting it done.

It is not perfect by any stretch of the imagination but it serves the need.

We have over 800 EMS Helicopters in the Country....operated by government and private organizations....and Emergency services run by most every level of government and non-government operations most of which rely upon Volunteers.

Are you saying there isn't sufficient support for the training.....or the scale of EMS operations is such there is not enough need for it?

I have volunteered my services in the past.....for several projects.....one even in the UK.

[jayteeto]

They can't get their basic core training done in the time available, never mind helicopter training. The bosses wouldn't even read past the first paragraph of a proposal. Many police officers are not even requalified for public disorder training these days.

It saves money..............................................

[rotorspeed]

SASless

Do you really expect answers to the questions you pose, asking about the level of commitment the management has to training and how much of their training budget goes on related training? Pretty much impossible to answer meaningfully, I'm sure. And not necessarily that relevant anyway - where a country spends its taxpayers' money will vary according many local factors.

You say your system works and I'm sure it does - to an extent. According to the interesting video link posted by Non-PC Plod on wire strikes, they are still the number one cause of fatal helicopter accidents in the US. And I'm sure some will be EMS.

You might like to think about the differences between jimf671's Scotland to your country - it might just not be as simple as the UK needing to follow your model. I can quite see why jim says it would be very difficult to train anyone on the ground likely to involved in an incident requiring an EMS helicopter to mark wires, as I understand the US EMS support team are good at doing. Perhaps it is partly because Scotland and the UK as a whole has so much less EMS activity than the US - I'd guess most police personnel will never be directly involved in an EMS helo landing in their whole careers, which makes applying more resources to training for marking overhead wires hard to justify. Surely too this is not something that can be done lightly - if ground crew are going to do it, the job's got to be done well or it could be more hazardous than nothing.

Of course I can see it's a big help to have wires marked on the ground, but just how much reliance should the helo crews put on this? One would have thought look out must be as vigilant as if none were marked - because some may be missed by the ground crew. And anyway, this US video says that 40% of wire strikes occur with wires the pilot knew were there.

One would have thought there would be detailed mapping of all power cables by the electricity boards - if not there surely should be. Could these maps not be obtained and over-laid on flight charts for vulnerable flight ops - eg police and EMS?

[9Aplus]

For sure you know about this safety work, done by REGA
Rega: A sheet of metal could save lives - YouTube

[Devil 49]

"jimf671" Said-

"Even if it does, most crews are going to think 'What do they know?' and just do their own thing. Seen it many times."

The PIC is ultimately responsible so, yes- I will do it my way each and every time. Nothing to do with demeaning those on the ground at the scene, their knowledge and experience, if that's your implication.

I will also interface with the requesting agency people on scene, whenever possible, and explain and train further. The better they do, the better we do, all better in the end for the patient population.


My program has a formal presentation that we offer to any and all agencies in our area. If requested, we make every effort to take the aircraft and flight crew to these training sessions. The physical presence and personal interaction reinforces the concepts presented. There is ALWAYS a lively question and answer session when the crew is present.
We remain in service, and if the training presents any potential delay, the program will frequently post other aircraft to provide better service.
Yes, these training sessions are additional to the requesting agencies primary mission and budget. Yet they are very well received.

"To a wet weary copper in the middle of nowhere, helicopters are either black magic or somebody else's problem or both." is an apt appreciation, but my experience is that those people are very, very interested in doing "the job" as well as they can. Offer them something to help, and it will be used.

The requesting agency staff are never Pathfinder level experts, but my belief is that some training is better than complete ignorance. I've been to many, many scenes and seen the value many, many times.

We did it the same way when there were only 3 aircraft in North Georgia, an area approximately the same size and population as Scotland. It's possible we have somewhat better climactic conditions...

Point is: it can be done and it does have a positive effect, even in imperfect conditions.

I don't know what happened in this particular accident, why, and whether ground personnel training and interface would have made any difference. I can see this happening with the pilot looking at the wire that was hit when he hit it.

[SASless]

49......the Brits just don't want to hear it!

They know all about how to do this EMS stuff don't you know....why look at the sheer numbers of them swarming about the UK day and night.

Mind you they have HSE Policies that forbid Fire Brigade Rescue Staff from using equipment that might save a life if they have not been trained on it....letting an injured person die as a result.

But hey.....you know....Rules are Rules and all that old Chap. We had a thread on that as i recall....something about a poor sod who fell into a deep hole....and old well or something....who expired before he was gotten out because some Management Type forbid the fire crew from improvising lifting gear and requiring them to wait many hours for "qualified" help to arrive.

The first time one of them cuts a set of Wires down and kills someone....perhaps we might remind them of the comments made in this thread.


Now seriously speaking.....49 confirms what I have been saying.

It is not a perfect world over here....but folks....we give it a serious effort to improve what we do.....and try to forge collaborative partnerships with those we work with in retrieving injured people from field sites.

It is in our very own best interests to do so.....as it is in yours too.

I challenge you to defend doing nothing as compared to what we do.

[JimL]

SASLess,

Why so condescending?

What is being discussed is already enshrined within the appropriate regulations and guidance and, it would be imagined, is part of best practice for HEMS units world-wide.

Appendix 1 to JAR-OPS 3.005(d)

(b) Operations Manual. An operator must ensure that the Operations Manual includes a supplement specifying operational considerations specific to HEMS operations. Relevant extracts from the Operations Manual shall be made available to the organisation for which the HEMS is being provided. (See ACJ to Appendix 1 to JAR-OPS 3.005(d) sub-paragraph (b).)

(e)(4) Ground emergency service personnel. An operator shall take all reasonable measures to ensure that ground emergency service personnel are familiar with the following (see IEM to Appendix 1 to JAR-OPS 3.005(d), sub-paragraph (e)(4)):

(i) Two way radio communication procedures with helicopters;

(ii) The selection of suitable HEMS operating sites for HEMS flights;

(iii) The physical danger areas of helicopters;

(iv) Crowd control in respect of helicopter operations; and

(v) The evacuation of helicopter occupants following an on-site helicopter accident.

IEM to Appendix 1 to JAR-OPS 3.005(d), sub-paragraph (e)(4)
Ground Emergency Service Personnel
See Appendix 1 to JAR-OPS 3.005(d), sub-paragraph (e)(4)

The task of training large numbers of emergency service personnel is formidable. Wherever possible, helicopter operators should afford every assistance to those persons responsible for training emergency service personnel in HEMS support.
It is extremely difficult for ground personnel to make a difference when such sites have wires that are less than conspicuous and, in circumstances when other complications appear to be more pressing (the danger of white-out).

With respect to the efficacy of the second crew member: at the time when the pilot is making an approach to the HEMS Landing Site, full attention should applied to the dangers of obstacles in the flight path. There should be no distractions apart from the obvious one of missing difficult-to-see wires when the focus of attention is on the spot where the touch-down is to be carried out.

It is difficult to imagine what additional measures might be put into place to remove, or mitigate, such dangers in an operation where they are always present.

The REGA system of marking (on the moving map) all wires in an operational area is a good defensive strategy (when the operating area is relatively small).

The practice of a thorough pre-landing recce is already part of the operational practices of most HEMS units but the human is ever fallible.

Jim

[Aucky]

The REGA system of marking (on the moving map) all wires in an operational area is a good defensive strategy (when the operating area is relatively small).
This is even possible for the entire UK on iPad now (happy to provide more info by PM).

[jimf671]

Appendix 1 to JAR-OPS 3.005(d)

sub-paragraph (e)(4)):

(i) Two way radio communication procedures with helicopters;




A little bit of a problem there.

In the case of a SAR aircraft working with mountain rescue, lifeboat or aux coastguard Marine FM band is used on Zero or the LandSAR calling channel.

In all other cases, Airwave (TETRA. Like Nodnett.) is expected to be the method for Air/Ground comms.

Murphy's Law, Airwave section, para one :rolleyes: states that when the terrain in particular makes it really important then there won't be coverage.

Para two states that when enough emergency service personnel turn up to substantial rural incident scenes they overload the cell and the system isn't available.

Para three states that aircrew don't enjoy punching long numbers and checking talk-groups during the approach to challenging unsurveyed landing sites.

[MightyGem]

And don't forget Para 4. When you try to transmit on Airwave in an urgent situation it will just beep at you. :ugh:

[AnFI]

So JimL you are still around, you're a bit scarce on the Glasgow thread.:confused:

[AnFI]

10^-9 i don't think so

[jimf671]

Some discussion about air-ground comms in the Norwegian press.

Luftambulanse vet om sambandsvikt - NRK ? Norge (http://www.nrk.no/norge/luftambulanse-vet-om-sambandsvikt-1.11470399)

Politiet: Prøvde å advare piloten om høyspentledninger - fikk ikke kontakt - VG Nett om Luftfart (http://www.vg.no/nyheter/innenriks/artikkel.php?artid=10149864)


An ambulance forum states the NLA a/c have 6 radios and a mobile phone partly due to the changeover to the new comms system.

[M609]

Google translate (with all it´s errors) links of the same:

NRK (http://translate.google.com/translate?sl=no&tl=en&js=n&prev=_t&hl=en&ie=UTF-8&u=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.nrk.no%2Fnorge%2Fluftambulanse-vet-om-sambandsvikt-1.11470399&act=url)

VG (http://translate.google.com/translate?sl=no&tl=en&js=n&prev=_t&hl=en&ie=UTF-8&u=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.vg.no%2Fnyheter%2Finnenriks%2Fartikkel.ph p%3Fartid%3D10149864&act=url&act=url)

[ShyTorque]

SAS, as is increasingly often the case these days, your ire against how "the Brits don't want to hear it" is largely unwarranted.

You seem to have forgotten the many previous discussions on this forum regarding safety issues surrounding the wisdom of allowing single pilot "mercy missions" by commercial enterprise in outdated, often unstabilised, VFR only machines, night and day, in the face of CFIT accidents on your home side of the pond.

That type of operation was legislated out in UK years ago after a safety review following similar accidents. You often complained about what you claim to be over-regulation by the CAA in this respect. Your argument has been that this must continue to be allowed in the USA, on the basis that financial / commercial constraints are paramount. You can't have it both ways, old chap! :=

We all know it's an imperfect world, especially when the funds and resources in general are constantly shrinking. Unfortunately the suit must be cut according to the cloth.

[SASless]

Shy.....when One begins speaking for others it is fraught with peril.

Read back through the posts and you shall find I am an advocate of twin engine, stabilized, Auto pilot equipped helicopters for EMS....on both sides of the great saltwater divide. I do point out that the current FAA Regulations allow for the use of Single Engine helicopters for Day and Night EMS work.

There is a huge difference in telling what the Law allows.....and endorsing those Regulations.

I very much supported the use of NVG's....when the FAA was not willing to act rapidly to field that technology. Now that they have....Operators are putting additional restrictions on their crews if NVG's are not being used for some reason.

You shall also see I have been one of the most ardent objectors to the FAA's former practice of allowing an EMS Operator to fly under Part 91 when not actually carrying a Patient.....thus reverting to a much lower standard for surface lighting by which to control the aircraft and weather minima.

The FAA has changed their position lately on that and now all EMS operations are required to be conducted under Part 135 which has a higher standard for Surface Lighting and Weather.

I have been very critical of the American system of EMS Operations re Safety.

Go back and do a search and see how many threads related to that I have started related to the topic....that alone would show I have been a proponent of change within the American system.

When NVG use was being advocated for the UK EMS operations....I suggested you learn from our experience in fielding that technology as we were further down that road than you. Far better you read about other's mistakes than repeat them yourself I would assume.

I was complimentary to other Nation's EMS systems....and until recently pointed out the success the Canadians were having although the situation at Ornge has caused that to be less appropriate. But there even, we see them taking important steps to improve the situation at off heliport landing sites.

You know that.....what you cannot abide is to have me criticize your system and point out aspects of it that would benefit from change or improvements.

Thus, your post very much misrepresents my views and past statements.

I have taken the position that you folks in the UK and EASA land have Rules that prevent the conduct of helicopter EMS operations at Night due to being over burdened with needless and arbitrary Rules.

We provide a 24 hour a day service.....with over 800 aircraft in the Helicopter Fleet doing EMS Work. With that amount of activity, we have seen the need to adapt, change, and improve what we do.

The Industry itself resisted the changes, the FAA surely did not come willingly to the party, the NTSB was slow to get behind the move for change, but we have improved the system.

The decrease in the accident rate proves that.

There are aspects of what we do that still is not as it should be.....but the situation is improving.

Have you done a fair, objective, critical analysis of the UK EMS system?

Care to share your findings with us?

Are you merely filling convenient niche needs....or are you providing a nationwide 24 hour a day EMS service for Emergency Medical Transportation and Seriously Ill Medical Patients?

Are there sufficient resources available to provide a 24 Hour service?

Is there a need for such a service?

Are EMS Operations adequately equipped to provide advanced life support services?

Are Ground Services trained and equipped to facilitate the use of EMS Helicopters?

Are Emergency Services, ground and air, properly equipped, trained, and proficient to effect communications during Helicopter EMS Operations?

Are there approved weather reporting facilities within the EMS Operation's Dispatch area sufficient to ensure accurate and timely weather reporting for use by Pilots in planning flights on short notice?

Is ATC capable of handling very short notice flights without risk of conflict or delay?

How long a list of questions do you want?

We cannot compare UK Ops to American Ops as they are being done in very different environments....physically, politically, and commercially....but the basics are the same.

I think the UK EMS system is no where near its potential yet and is hampered by a lack of support and budget. Germany and Norway seem to be leading the way in Europe.....perhaps in time the UK will catch up.

[SilsoeSid]

Shy.....when One begins speaking for others it is fraught with peril.

Sasless tries to big it up against the Brits!

[zorab64]

SAS - not directed at you personally, just your country, since you're knocking ours (all friendly banter, of course!). . . they have HSE Policies that forbid Fire Brigade Rescue Staff from using equipment that might save a life if they have not been trained on it....letting an injured person die as a result.

But hey.....you know....Rules are Rules and all that old Chap. We had a thread on that as i recall....something about a poor sod who fell into a deep hole....an old well or something....who expired before he was gotten out because some Management Type forbid the fire crew from improvising lifting gear and requiring them to wait many hours . . .
DON'T blame the Brits - all of this complete sh*t came from your side of the pond as a direct result of everyone taking out lawsuits against anyone & anything that just "might" have been the "responsibility" of someone else. The Brit lawyers have just put bells on the US game, such that a creeping culture of festering litigation (that only really benefits lawyers) has built up a frighteningly risk-averse management culture, forbidding anyone in their employ from making sensible decisions or being allowed to be responsible for their own actions. (I could write a book on Laws & Guidance for Idiots, written by A. Fool (anon!), starting with the guidance printed on the side of a 3kw electric paint-stripping gun bought in 1986 "not to be used as a hair-dryer" - I always thought that was for Americans!! )

Many of us (probably on both sides of the water?) are driven spare by the parasitic actions of the legal vultures who will swoop, at the first opportunity, to peck over the bones of any incident or accident. Most Emergency Service individuals (and many others) wish to help where possible, use initiative and do the best they can in the circumstances, especially when there might be risk to life. If it all goes well, the individual or group may be lauded as heros by the press BUT, back at base, the management (whether the result was positive or negative) will be champing at the bit to castigate the "heros" for breaking one miniscule paragraph of guidance or legislation that will have put their corporate liability at risk, and exposed their personal liability as a result. Whilst I'm not always a fan of the press, it's only a public campaign that's likely to save the individual, or group, from action or dismissal since, in most right-minded people's minds, "they did all they could to help, and more than most in the circumstances - thanks for doing your best".

Until and unless the legislators allow people to take responsibility for their own actions, recognise that people were doing what they could, for the right reasons and as sensibly as their skills & training allowed, and disallow some of the ridiculous claims that idiots make for their own ineptitude, it'll not get much better. Some need to grow up & recognise that, in many cases, Darwin was right - and the gene pool will benefit as a result. F:ugh: F:ugh: S:ugh: (emoticons more appropriate in this case than any other!)

Off thread a little, I know, but I'm not in favour of taking a sledgehammer to crack a nut - trained paramedic or Doctors eyes in the front seat are just as good as a second pilot, IMHO, for dealing with this tragic circumstance. At least in the 99.99+% of normal landings their other skills will be significantly more useful than a second pilot!

[SASless]

No argument there Zorba....I believe we should take all the Warning Labels off stuff and let nature take its course.

Re the Fire Brigade incident that I refer to....if it were my local Volunteer Fire Department that did that....I would be making the exact same comments. However, knowing the guys and gals that serve there.....they would have found a way to get the guy out of the hole and damn the Rules as they would value that single life above mere compliance with a Rule for the Rule's sake.

There was a huge outcry in your own media about that tragedy so nothing new in my bringing it up.

We need Rules....but they should be reasonable and actually address a problem that cannot be cured by sheer good will of those involved in the activity.

There are Industry Best Practices that can be drawn from many sources and those are what we should embrace....so long as they are good, effective, and reasonable.

The Nanny State Mentality is not good, effective, or reasonable.

Regarding EMS Operations.....we have to decide how to go about doing this important and necessary work in as safe a manner as possible contingent to getting the job done.

We do not benefit from losing crews, patients, and aircraft while engaged in that pursuit.

I defy anyone to prove that any existing service is "perfect".

I also defy anyone to prove that any one system or method is "perfect".

There is no way under the Sun there is any one NAA that has the exact right set of Rules and Regulations regarding EMS Operations......NOT ONE.

We have to accept there shall be different rules in different places but they should be constructed to allow the maximum flexibility for carrying out safe, efficient medical transportation of injured and ill persons.

We know for a fact that NAA's are not known for being adept at finding such solutions.

[jimf671]

... ... not in favour of taking a sledgehammer to crack a nut - trained paramedic or Doctors eyes in the front seat are just as good as a second pilot, IMHO, for dealing with this tragic circumstance. At least in the 99.99+% of normal landings their other skills will be significantly more useful than a second pilot!


Gets my vote. Develop the resources that you already have.

I believe that during NLA longline ops the Doctor is the lookout at the door giving direction to the pilot so she/he is already doing aviation tasks.

[ShyTorque]

Thus, your post very much misrepresents my views and past statements.

In which case, I apologise and I'm glad that you have finally laid down your views more clearly. Unfortunately, your tendency to pot-stir has backfired here by clouding what you were really trying to say.

However, what cannot be denied is that in many of your posts (not just on this thread, but on many others) have always been extremely critical of the UK CAA. To some extent. I agree. Some aviation rules are not logical, or appear over cautious to anyone with any experience and common sense.

However, in the beginning, there were no rules. Then people started making ****ups. Rules got put in place.

Commercialism in aviation doesn't always go hand in hand with safety and of late, in UK at least, "no-win, no-fee" lawyers (an invention of the USA, I believe) have done huge damage to common sense in society overall, imho. We are supposed to be a civilised society but now the only way that we can be made civilised, at least in the professional rule makers eyes, is to make more rules. But these days it's more about covering one's backside than civilisation, or common sense.

P.S. Sometimes others can effectively stir the same pot, too. ;)

[Devil 49]

It appears to me that the accident wires were a long span over a valley without a clear line of towers or right of way. There is no mention of that span being marked on the surface.

There's some mention of charting wires in various accounts of this accident. Charts, NOTAMs, and METARs are all historical information and shouldn't be considered as definitive.

There's mention of failed verbal communication in various accounts, but no mention of a method of visual signals, like a "waveoff/abort".

P.S. Y'all can argue about stabilized, autopilot, multi-engine, day/night, IFR/VFR, 2 pilot crew, etc., all you want, but what works is well supported well trained pilot in reliable equipment allowed to work with minimal external pressures.

[zorab64]

SAS, jim, Shy & D49(your P.S.) - it seems we're all very much singing of the same hymn sheet. Once upon a time it was called common sense, but some people seem to require a nanny all their lives, while others get on with it and remember that we continue learning, loooooooooong after we've left school!

jim -that would appear to be an eminently sensible use of a fellow professional, who will likely absorb both the skills and raison d'etre very quickly, just before reverting to the primary job s/he's been flown there for.

Hurrah for common sense :ok:, thumbs down to ar*e-covering. . . :=

[jimf671]

[ ... an eminently sensible use of a fellow professional, who will likely absorb both the skills and raison d'etre very quickly, just before reverting to the primary job s/he's been flown there for. ...


And uses the important motivator "your 4r5e is in a sling too if it all goes wrong".

[M609]

NLA EC135s, Police EC135, 330 Sqn Sea King and 720 Sqn 412 did a fly past when mourners gathered at Bjørn Nergårds grave during the funeral today.

VIDEO LINK - NRK.NO (http://www.nrk.no/ostlandssendingen/kollegaer-hedret-bjorn-nergard-1.11489832)

[M609]

AIBN report released yesterday: Report (English Version) (http://www.aibn.no/Luftfart/Avgitte-rapporter/2015-06-eng?pid=SHT-Report-ReportFile&attach=1)