Brainstorming HEMS
Hi all,
prompted by many threads on US HEMS accidents I thought it might be educational (or at least of intrest) if we brainstormed some of the concepts that have been discussed as possible ways to mitigate the risks of HEMS, particularly night HEMS. There is no reason why a world wide look at the problem might possibly throw up elements for all of us to learn from for introduction into our own HEMS system.
Australia has not escaped the night HEMS accident scenario. The following is not a comparison of our HEMS system with anyone else's.
I was fortunate enough to be involved in a study tour of HEMS operations in Europe and although I did not do the US leg of the trip, others in my organisation did. I did however spend a year in the US earlier in my flying career. I dont offer this as evidence that what I am saying below is valid, simply that it is an opnion. Inevtiably it will also be a generalisation and suffer there as well. IT IS TO STIMULATE BRAINSTORMING THE ISSUE.
I have drawn heavily on previous threads and posts, particularly those of Nick Lappos and Shawn Coyle: this is a compilation of ideas, not just "my" ideas. Here are some ideas that may, in combination, mitigate the risk of HEMS operations:
1. Night flying requires reference to instruments. If you want to fly at night get an IFR rating. Even just the simplified en route IFR rating. 3 hours instruments required each 3 months to stay current. Renewals required each year.
2. Institute a night lower safe altitude even when VFR. Make it 1000 ft for VFR, and allow a lower one of 500 ft if using NVG or if IFR rated and in an IFR capable aircraft. 500 ft for day.
3. Institute go/no go weather minima. In black and white. Lower weather minima for IFR capable operations. I believe all operational restrictions should significantly advantage IFR programs, thus encouraging the upskilling to IFR and the adoption of autopilot equipped aircraft by outcome - this is the only effective way to get bean counters on board.
4. EASA crew standards implemented: two pilots up the front for all HEMS missions, day, night and IFR. Note: the second pilot may be a HEMS Crew member specifically trained in aviation skills on an approved front seat competency course.
5. Night operations outside of lit, prepared and established HLS or below 1000 ft require NVG.
6. Moving map systems mandatory as is required in several European HEMS programs.
7. The establishment of a low level IFR infrastructure and helicopter specific instrument procedures exploiting the low speed capability of the helicopter.
8. The establishment of ADS-B and GPS - W based infrastructure ASAP.
9. The fitment of an IR vision system and/or EGPWS conferring operational advantages.
10. The fitment of TCAS/TCAD to exploit higher traffic density.
11. Address areas of multiple competing programs to find a solution. I believe the community we are trying to help should not be a commercial battlefield at their expense.
12. Create an agreed HEMS "gold standard", published and in turn advertised by programs. Ie you could be a 5 star operation if you tick all the agreed boxes such as multicrewed, IFR capable, SPIFR autopilot equipped, NVG, TCAS, EGPWS/IR, regular CRM, etc, etc.
13. The removal of different regs standards for different "mother" organisations i.e. public use aircraft have to abide by HEMS regulations if doing HEMS regardless of who owns the aircraft. This includes abolishing different standards for SAR and for return legs in terms of weather and minima. SAR and HEMS should operate to the same standards.
14. The establishment of a risk management system that does not involve the ability to fudge the numbers in order to launch.
Make it a five to ten year project to more slowly absorb costs and operational changes, and away you go!
Yes: some programs will have to merge or be extinguished. You get that.
Discuss.
More beer waiter!