Originally Posted by
jeepys
Crab,
I empathise with you completely but there is far more risk of killing someone or injuring at the very least compared to an engine failure. We have recent stats to confirm that.
If someone gave you the option of doing a PC1 departure knocking over an old lady with your downwash or going PC2 with a different style and having no problems, what would you choose? I am not being facetious, but these downwash incidents are becoming very common.
PC2 is definitely the way to go in these urban impromptu landing sites. It's not unsafe to do a PC2 departure - it's just a different way of flying where risk is managed. Agree with you completely.
For example in this case, I would expect the aircraft could have comfortably ascended way steeper than the text book Cat A departure until above the obstacles, holding a safe vertical reject as an option (PC2 in the HEMS environment does need specific training). You would comfortably have the capability to clear all obstacles AEO up to DPATO as required by PC2 before achieving PC1 OEI obstacle clearance once transitioning forward. The downwash is contained (whilst significant) to the area you just left (and therefore had some control over).
The fallacy of PC1 being the only "safe" way to operate is wrong. It is very safe in certain circumstances but when uncontrolled third parties are present, then you have to fly smarter and have bosses who support and backup crews operating in this way.
All that being said, I think the crew were unlucky in this case as their downwash would have been just on the cusp of being completely disappated at their height - funneling bites.