SASless
Have to say you've got me on this one. Just explain how the reversal of the front seat might have contributed to the effects of the wake turbulence we were talking about? Conversely, I can however see that it might have contributed to the fact that he survived the impact. Just clarify how the EMS type of operation might have contributed to a WT cause?
How are we being mislead if we chalk this one up to the EMS industry? Because it is the accidents that get chalked up to the EMS industry that will drive the extent, impact and cost of any changes to EMS operations. Inevitably emotion will overlay objectivity and simple statistics will be used to justify the changes. The more specific and relevant those statistics are, the more appropriate any changes will be.
This applies to any area of helo ops, whether private, corporate, offshore or EMS. There is a fine commercial line that needs to be - and is - trod not to burden any type of operation with more cost and legislation than optimal. The more the accident statistics are relevant to the added risks of a given type of operation the more optimal the conclusions should be.
Presuming (and it may well not turn out to be) this is wake turbulence, this is not an EMS accident; it's a helo accident that just happened to occur to an EMS acft. But of course the stats will say EMS.
SASless, you may well know the following data. What % of total helo hours flown in the US are for EMS? What % of landings are EMS? What % of accidents are EMS? Be interested to see that and any other relevant data you have/can find!