I have an interest in EMS Helicopter operations and have been reading about the relitively high accident rate for these operations in the USA. I noticed that many were operating under VFR, often at night (no NVFR in the USA?).
Do such operations take place in Australia under the VFR? I understand that most contracted operators (CHC, CareFlight) would probably be required to conduct EMS operations with IFR capable aircraft and rated aircrew, but what about volunteer organisations?
It is common for IFR equipped and crewed EMS machines to operate VFR by day and night if conditions allow it. The use of NVG below lowest safe altitude requires you to be under the VFR as you must be visual.
I think you are referring to VFR only EMS operations, of which I don't know of any in Australia.
I think you are pretty close to the mark Coyote. I haven't operated in Oz for a couple of years however I believe you can operate NVD whilst still operating under the IFR (or VFR)....if you are below the LSALT you are just "visual" ie 500 ft visual. Yes, no?
Hi Turkeyslapper, I believe that the use of NVD is to supplement NVFR, not IFR. if you are on instruments the rules state that you must be above LSALT enroute, no exemptions. As far as I know, most if not all EMS operators in Australia are cable of running NVG, but choose not to unless the contract requires it. But I could be wrong.
Not sure if I have misunderstood the question but....
I have recently been doing some work on Queensland helipads mapping and I can assure you there is bugger all GPS approaches. Lets have it as VFR ( visual ) from LSALT to the pad. Some pads are lucky to have lights.
Turkeyslapper, in answer to your question it probably depends upon the specific CASA approval the operator has.
To fly A to B at night below LSALT you must have an exemption, be it using Nitesun or NVG.
The exemption I am familiar with stipulates that when below LSALT on NVG you must be Night VFR. To me it makes sense, if you are visual at night (which you must be to be on goggles), then apply visual flight rules.
Lets have it as VFR ( visual ) from LSALT to the pad. Some pads are lucky to have lights.
Yes agree....I am not quite sure what you are referring to?
Thanks Coyote...it has been a while for me however, as I understand it (and I am more than happy to be corrected) but surely I can operate NVD under the IFR or VFR as opposed to IMC vs VMC. Naturally, I accept you would be VMC when below LSALT. Example, I fly under the IFR to the hospital at Texas (or at a primary response) and it is black as out there, I am under VMC at my LSALT and descend - I am still IFR until I call landing or in the circuit and cancelled SAR...goggles or not?
Quote:
To me it makes sense, if you are visual at night (which you must be to be on goggles), then apply visual flight rules.
I could fly around all night on an IFR flight plan and still be in VMC...I still operate IFR?
Cheers for the discussion
Last edited by Turkeyslapper; 4th Feb 2012 at 12:01.
Sorry I should rephrase that. I don't know a single EMS operator that the aircraft/crew doesn't have the ability to operate IFR.
Depending one which base/client you are flying for then there's either nitesun or NVD for operations below LSALT at night (you still have to be visual at LSALT prior to descending).
Operations below LSALT will vary from one operator to another, as coyote points out it depends on what's in your ops manual and what exemptions CASA has approved.
Ok, thanks for the responses. IFR enroute, then VFR (in VMC with NVG or Nightsun) onto LP, is what I would have expected.
I did read in Flight Safety Australia magazine (a few years ago now) about an EMS helicopter (BK I believe) going inadvertent IMC while only VFR equipped and manned. It made a safe landing however. I believe it was in QLD. Of course this is only by my memory of the article and I may have some of the facts wrong.
From what I have read wrt accidents in the USA, VFR EMS operations with VFR only aircraft may be permitted and there may not be any additional provision for NVFR (ie LSALT). I have not flown in the states so have no first hand knowledge, but their accident rate tends to indicate that there may be some difference in regulation. Does anyone here know?
If my memeory serves me correctly (and correct me if I am wrong) I think the BK117 incident wasn't really an inadvertant IMC per se. Returning to the sunshine coat, NVFR and weather deteriorated with little warning at the destination with insufficient fuel to go anywhere else.
Crew made a descision to conduct an instrument approach into the destination...the pilot had a military instrument rating previously so at least had the skill sets to safely handle the situation in a controlled fashion......maybe it was advertent IMC Is that in the ballpark?
Cheers
PS....Can you still operate NVG below the LSALT when considered operationally required?
Last edited by Turkeyslapper; 5th Feb 2012 at 07:29.
If my memeory serves me correctly (and correct me if I am wrong) I think the BK117 incident wasn't really an inadvertant IMC per se. Returning to the sunshine coat, NVFR and weather deteriorated with little warning at the destination with insufficient fuel to go anywhere else.
Crew made a descision to conduct an instrument approach into the destination...the pilot had a military instrument rating previously so at least had the skill sets to safely handle the situation in a controlled fashion......maybe it was advertent IMC Is that in the ballpark?
Cheers
PS....Can you still operate NVG below the LSALT when considered operationally required?
Some pads are lucky to have lights.
Is that in the ballpark?
