Bridge closed due to Dutch Trauma helicopter

[Self loading bear]

In the Netherlands we do not have an Air Ambulance.
The so called Trauma helicopters are used to deliver a trauma surgeon quickly to the accident site.
After stabislisation of the patients, these are almost always transported to hospital by road ambulance.


In case of traffic jams the helicopter can be faster to deliver a surgeon even in the inner-cities.
(photo from Dumpert news site)

Cheers SLB

[TimdeBoer]

Video below, quite a scary departure between the buildings.
I think it would have been safer to go straight up a bit more.
These canals are sometimes covered with lines stretched from one side to the other.


dumpert.nl - Traumahelikopter stijgt op nu niet in VVS (http://www.dumpert.nl/mediabase/7032935/00770a97/traumahelikopter_stijgt_op_nu_niet_in_vvs.html)

Edit: added:
Could some experienced pilots maybe give insight as to why the crew performed such a departure?

[hueyracer]

I am trying to stop myself from commenting other pilots actions....as i am a pilot myself i know that we do dumb **** sometimes, but other times we are well aware of everything around us.....and things look differently on camera...

[TimdeBoer]

Edited post above...

Would be interested to hear what experienced pilots could tell about the video.

[311kph]

Nothing to see here, move along!

[abgd]

Generally speaking, helicopter departures are safer if you hover at a low height then pick up speed before climbing (look up the 'dead man's curve'). Even for a twin turbine this is generally safer. The pilot will be balancing this against the risk of hitting a line, which I'm sure he or she will be looking out for - I don't think this helicopter had line cutters installed. It's true that lines can be very hard to see.

I'm not a helicopter pilot so I wouldn't like to comment on whether one or another course of action is clearly better than the other, but I'd be very cautious about judging the pilot's actions to be reckless.

[Nescafe]

I think it would have been safer to go straight up a bit more.

Did he/she have the required power available?

These canals are sometimes covered with lines stretched from one side to the other.

Perhaps while the causalty was being stabilised, the pilot recced his/her possible departure paths and chose this one based around his/her observations?

Judging anyone's actions based on 60 seconds of footage is foolish.

[krypton_john]

I'm not sure what the fuss is about. Pilot probably had plenty of time while the medics were doing their things to scope out his departure options. We have no idea what he knew.

[Tickle]

I always thought this video was pretty amazing:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Om2jgYG6b24

Another favourite:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HJTb5p6q7dM

[DroneDog]

Agree, I can't see what the fuss is about. Lovely work.

[500guy]

"Generally speaking, helicopter departures are safer if you hover at a low height then pick up speed before climbing (look up the 'dead man's curve'). Even for a twin turbine this is generally safer. The pilot will be balancing this against the risk of hitting a line, which I'm sure he or she will be looking out for - I don't think this helicopter had line cutters installed. It's true that lines can be very hard to see. "

Abgd.

True, it is a comparative risk analysis. But the statistics show it is far safer to just go straight up when you are taking off from an off airport location. In the US Wirestrikes make up 25% of fatal accidents. Only 5% are engine related.

Many of those strikes were on takeoff, and they all were all "looking" for wire. Sometimes you just cant see it. The structures may be behind trees or buildings and the wire may blend with the background.

Unless I am on an airport, heliport or in the middle of a field where I can verify with 100% accuracy no wires for 200M or more, I'm just going to go straight up. It the lesser of the two risks.

[[email protected]]

All other things being equal, it looks as though a Cat A Helipad style departure might have been the best option.

However, judging by the short time between starting and departing, it may well be that medical considerations - ie urgent need to get the patient to hospital -might have persuaded the pilot to accept an amount of extra risk.

[RVDT]

All other things being equal, it looks as though a Cat A Helipad style departure might have been the best option.

If there was a need for a rejected take-off you would have to agree.

Reality is that the 135 at that elevation and temperature on the day ~ 7 deg C would have OEI OGE Hover performance at ~ 170 kg less than MGTOM.

It was primarily designed to do exactly this type of operation and is the way it is used.

it may well be that medical considerations - ie urgent need to get the patient to hospital

Not done in the Netherlands as quoted.

[tistisnot]

RVDT, please do not sully the thread with common sense - it was a scary movie .... :rolleyes:

[[email protected]]

Fair enough RVDT but I don't fly the 135 and I wasn't part of the crew that day - were you?:)

[snchater]

Speaking as a private pilot but professional medic:

I have no knowledge of the modus operandi of the Dutch service .

However if the purpose is purely to get a trauma surgeon to the patient quickly then using pre-surveyed landing sites/rendezvous points followed by surface transfer of the surgeon( by motorcycle or rapid response vehicle) would reduce the flying risks . I doubt if there would be any significant time difference or patient outcome.

[Cyberhacker]

Nothing but a thumbs up for the aircrew.

But that video must have made our hi-viz suited clipboard monitors have a fit - the exclusion zone only a few feet from the helicopter.

Where was the miles of "Keep Clear" tape etc?

[yellowbird135]

Where was the miles of "Keep Clear" tape etc?

Yesss....tape and heli-ops......great combination.