What Limits wrote
Quote:
It's a different culture, under different rules, with different philosophies, expectations, and goals. Right or wrong, profit is the driving force for all business in the US, and that will not change no matter how much fun the rest of the world wants to make of it. Short-term profit is the end-all and be-all of the US economy, and short-term profit is not possible if multi-engine, multi-crew aircraft flown only under IFR are required. So get over it, those will never be required, and will seldom be used.
With the greatest respect to our American brothers, there is the problem, right there.
What is the acceptable death rate of pilots, medical personnel and patients before something has to be done to change this?"
Acceptable death rate? Zero. This isn't combat, where one calculates an acceptable loss (unless you're an insurance company). You can't usefully (or profitably) have a fatal accident, so good management is always working to reduce the possibility of that cost.
That said, the scenarios that US HEMS operates in and the risk management thereof will affect accident rates. How does that relate to the Missouri accident?
------------------------------------------------------------------
ShyTorque wrote:
"This profit driven philosophy is quite possibly where the much of the press-on-itis comes from. As for a mantra that the USA always knows best and no-one else is entitled to comment on any of it because they don't understand.....really!
How would relatives of a deceased patient or crew member feel if they knew that lives of their loved ones might not have been lost if things had been different i.e. profit for the service provider wasn't such a major issue?
We had a similar issue in UK a couple of decades ago. The only logical remedy was for CAA legislation to be tightened up, and it was.
As the saying goes, if you think safety is expensive, try having an accident."
Sir, the scheduled airlines are all very much profit oriented, at least in the US, and their safety record is a respectable benchmark. It's not the "for profit aspect" that compromises safety, it's the methods used to maximize profitability.
The ultimate criterion might be "profits" but the methods are the same with bad management across the aviation spectrum, for profit and non-profit; government and private. Bad management encouraging bad practices isn't specific to any model.
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Jack Carson wrote:
"I can’t speak to European HEMES operations but I can address what I believe may be a contributing factor to the mishap rate here in the United States. The vast majority of US HEMS operations are would fall into a category identified as a traditional model. These are typically single engine machines strategically located to provide the operator with a solid business base for the machine. The AS-350 series make up a significant portion of this fleet. The AS-350 has limited payload range when kitted out for HEMS operations. It is typical to operate very near or at the aircraft’s maximum gross weight on every mission. A 250-300 lb patient in the US is the norm today in the US. At 33% fuel burn and using 11% (20 min.) with three 180 lb crewmen the fuel load would have to be limited to 45%. This leaves the pilot with only 1 hour mission fuel. Flexibility is not the norm."
I don't know where Mr Carson's numbers come from, I didn't wade through his table. I've flown EMS for 10 years, and I routinely operate at 2+10 in fuel. Yes, I'm often at or near MGTO or forward CG, but haven't had issues when I respect the RFM- and I do. Yes, when I have 200+ in each of the crew seats, I reduce base departure fuel load, and I may go as low as 1+55 in the summer, to allow a useable patient weight with NG limiting at Appalachian mountain heights.
45% departure fuel would have been an issue for the Missouri crash pilot, but I'm betting against fuel exhaustion in this event. I can't imagine why he'd leave base with almost 500 lbs to MGTO.
Last edited by Devil 49; 29th Aug 2011 at 16:09.