Night HEMS Ops - Twin or Single?

[ROTO]

Hi fellow aviators: At the risk of bringing up this touchy subject I am interested to know what the general feeling is out there amongst HEMS pilots (Night Commanders) regarding the replacement of twin engine helicopters with singles - much pressure is being put on us by the manufactures to go the single route in efforts to capitalise on a sector of the market previously untouched - presently EU standards are pushing to have singles band for night time HEMS operations !

Have any studies been done in this regard and if so where can one get hold of them.

I am presently under much pressure to change our excisting 24 hr operations to a single engine fleet - we presently work under the most extreme of HEMS conditions. Interestingly, as is always the case, the pressure is coming from those ill informed of the exact nature of the type of work at hand and dangers involved - their argument being based purely on financial considerations. My pilots are not 'happy campers' at the moment facing these recommendations.......lets hear what the rest of you have to say.

Thanks guys !

[Mars]

ROTO:

If your question is about the UK it is a waste of a thread!

Even if it is addressed at somewhere else in Europe it still smells like a wind-up.

[SASless]

Needs some better smelling bait me thinks!

[ROTO]

Lets get to the point ! Extensive studies have been conducted to establish the safety margins between twin and single engine turbine helicopters.

I am interested to know what studies, if any, have been conducted between twin and single engine helicopters in HEMS "Night Operations' category..................if you are a HEMS pilot you'll know exactly where I am coming from - awaiting your comments.

[Dantruck]

Not sure, but I doubt you'll find a study as specific as that.

Suggest you go chat to people like Native American Air Ambulance and other US hems operators. They'll give you the 'you're more likely to suffer a failure in one of the other single components' argument Day or night - what difference?

Maybe you can inform us a little more Mr ROTO...?:suspect:

[autosync]

Roto, you say your from Greenwich, I will assume that is Greenwhich U.K In which case, you are hardly going to be flying Single engine HEMs cause you are not allowed flyover London, which won't be much use to anyone!

[Av8r]

I hope this is a wind up.

“much pressure is being put on us by the manufactures to go the single route in efforts to capitalise on a sector of the market previously untouched”

Huh? What manufacturer is putting pressure on you to get out of your, and I’m assuming, current twins?

I am also assuming you’re a Chief Pilot of an existing 24 hr twin engined EMS operation in the UK “under the most extreme of HEMS conditions” and therefore also assuming a fair percentage of your flight time is under the IFR?
If that’s the case, and you need to ask the question you have posted on this forum, it’s time to get out.
Leave the Chief Pilots position to someone who knows what their doing, and who can safely run that EMS operation.

Gentlemen, this is a windup.


P.S. I’d love to come and see the “singles band for night time HEMS operations” where they playing?
:ok:

[Thomas coupling]

ROTO: Methinks you are a teenager messing about with this web site:)
You are 'current' on 7 types at the moment...busy little tinker!
JAR states 3 is the max for a HEMS driver...oops caught you out..

Have another go...............


try: "compulsory wearing of parachutes in all helos over 1130kg"

:=

[chopperdr]

i think the " hi fellow aviators" line should have been the first sign that "roto" may not be up to snuff.
dr

[NickLappos]

See the article. What does PPRUNE think?

http://www.thecouriermail.news.com.au/common/story_page/0,5936,7759693%255E3102,00.html

[RDRickster]

I'm probably gunna get clobbered for this, but I think they have a point if their concern relates to relying solely on the pilot's visibility without proper instruments to navigate during limited visibility... especially if called out to the bush. Now, if the concern was single engine vs. twins... find new medics. However, additional instruments and an instrument rating is a reasonable control measure to ask for.

(ducking for cover)

[High Nr]

After killing 9 people in less than 3 years, one must ask why should any Medico make it 10????

And those 9 fatalities were either crew or patients. [Killed, not dead from previous injuries]

Premier Beatie is a wimp......he knows that he must fund the local services with proper machines and staff…hence money....but he is a typical Australian politician...a born liar...and by is own words, wont take the responsibility.

And there will be more.....until someone says enough.......And the regulator, CASA has been totally culpable in their lack of sincere regulation of these activities. Let’s have flexi days, short weeks and many many meetings, but that Queensland thing can wait.

CASA is totally responsible.....and through that idiot Minister to Howard himself.

There will be more, unless the Regulator sets the standard that the local folk can follow.

But they didn't, can't and won't.

[BlenderPilot]

All around the world there are pilots operating single engine helicopters where an engine failure would mean almost certain tragedy.

Just now after the helicopter accident we had here last week legislators are talking about the safety of single engine helicopters over the city, police, TV and all the new 407's and 350's around.

As you will see in the pic below this is probably one of the worst places in the world to have an engine fail, just in that picture there are 9 heliports and all of them get used at least once a day, some like the the most visible one have more than 10 single engine ops a day, look at the pic, and imagine if the engine were to fail in one of those at day or night, you will either end up bouncing on top a building, hitting wires or people.

But on the other side we have never had an engine failure related accident in a single.

The worst accidents have always been twins, we have had S76's, Bell 222's, AS355's, 212's and a twin engine Bell 206 go down in the past years,

Accidents in singles have been few, actually 3, one hit an antenna AS350, B206 that got into VRS while maneuvering abruptly during a police chase near the building in the pic, and the last one the heavy B206JR 15 days ago.

So to me its not really about single or twin, my personal opinion is they are statistically equally likely to have a failure.

I think it has to do more with things like, GOOD MAINTENANCE, Company SOP's and Management, Pilot experience under difficult situations, etc.

Today there are many things to help you make single engine ops safer, engine HUMS equipment, newer more powerful helicopters like the 407, 350B3, and others.

I would much rather fly a well impeccably maintained 407 than any old, marginally maintained twin.

http://homepage.mac.com/helipilot/PPRuNe/TMHelipuerto.jpg

[Helinut]

"Single Engine" is really used as shorthand and would better be described as "simple". As others have identified, the provision of an autopilot/stab, radionav systems flight instruments and pilots with instrument capability and currency are the critical requirements for reducing the night time accidents.

[NickLappos]

I see the distinction, but think the effort is misdirected. Why not call for what is needed, instead of using code words that will assure they won't get what they want?

[Autorotate]

High NR - You say they need to give agencies better equipment.

What about QES and their 412s ??


:E

[Nigd3]

I dont see the report as having been written very clearly. It initially states "Meetings of ambulance officers in central Queensland yesterday voted to allow paramedics to refuse to fly in single-engine helicopters which rely on a pilot's visibility and not instruments to navigate" which infers that single engine aircraft are inherently dangerous at night.

Shouldnt the Union Rep spokesman Steve Crowe rather have said he expected a decision within a week on whether other paramedics would endorse the total ban on night flying in helicopters that do not meet a minimum equipment level for night flying.

[heedm]

We seem to be in agreement that requesting a stabilized IFR platform is what they mean, and a reasonable request.

I'm still of the opinion that with all other things being equal a twin is safer. I'm quite aware of the stats and the scenarios, but when you lose 50% of your power you still have more options that losing 100%. I wouldn't be here anymore if I flew singles. With that in mind, I think it's reasonable to ask for a twin for an operation that spends a lot of time hovering over hostile surfaces, with lives on the line, and with other professionals on board.

I do see a bit of hypocrisy saying all that while I know that firefighting, longlining, etc. is routinely done on singles. In those cases, it's really just the pilot that accepts the risk, one would argue risk that is a part of the job. To make a rule that all commercial work be done on twins would initially hurt the industry, likely beyond recovery for many. Eventually, though, the need would rise to the cost, the experience level would all be on twins, so perhaps we'd start seeing comparable stats and know certainly whether twins are or are not safer.


One last thought: When we start blaming the lack of equipment on board for an accident, I contend that the blame is misdirected. If the equipment was not sufficient for the mission, then the mission shouldn't have happened, making the primary cause judgement.

Matthew.

[Nigd3]

Heedm

Good points.

Just one thing, if the regs arent in place to determine what the equipment required is to complete the mission, so the pilot can make a judgement, therefore make the primary cause lack of clear definition?

If there are EMS flights being conducted with varying levels of helicopter avionics, does that not mean there are no set standards for the operators and pilots to adhere to?

This is a genuine question by the way? I may be being naive but surely there are some guidelines and rules from CASA for these sort of ops?

[deeper]

I think we should read "single engine" as meaning "single pilot".

It has nothing to do with the number of engines, none of the rescue accidents has resulted from an engine failure except where the aircraft ran out of fuel.

The problem is that we have a modern fleet of aircraft with quality pilots at the controls coming to grief at night. The predominant feature of these accidents is that the machines and pilots are instrumented and trained to NIGHT VFR standards but are flying into IMC.

In some cases it has been shown that reasonable standard operating procedures and/or recurrent training was next to non exsistent.

[Nigel Osborn]

As Nick has pointed out in previous posts, not many accidents have been caused by engine failures, especially in the offshore role.
What the paramedics, and pilots of course, want is decent instrumentation and sas systems fitted. These are normally found on twin engined machines and thus the call for twins.
Most of the EMS/SAR accidents in Queensland have been pilot error type accidents where the conditions have not been suitable for the job in hand.
There have been some single engine failure accidents in QLD over the years in charter flights, such as a S58 engine failed on take off, S62 spanner into engine after take, several 206s,etc. However the reliability of singles has improved immensily over the years.
Having said that it is up to CASA to make the regs with a bit more common sense and practicallity than at present as I find it ridiculous that I am allowed to fly a 350 without flotation over the sea without emergency floatation just because I am a rescue helicopter which is classed as aerial work and therefore floats are not required.
QLD only has one auto hover helicopter, a 412, in Cairns and thats it, all the rest are vfr singles and twins and very few ifr twins.
Neither Mr Beattie nor councils nor companies will spend more unless someone makes them.
Rant over!!:(

[Autorotate]

Nigel what about all the other 412s operated by QES and also the Careflight 412 at Cooly. Are they not IFR machines.

Autorotate.

[Nigel Osborn]

Auto

Yes, they are IFR but not equipped with auto hover unlike the Cairns machine. This means they do not winch over the water at night, hence when the Capricorn 407 ditched, they were not rescued until dawn.
The only auto hover machines in Oz are the Cairns 412 and 4 S76, at least that was the number when I gave it away.

[MD900 Explorer]

Havn't they being doing single pilot IFR stateside for a while in single EMS ops. What did the paramedics have to say about that?

I would have thought because of the geography, that the guys down under would be in twins with two pilot IFR. I doesn't make any sense to me. The majority of the work is carried out on singles and then the Telstra child flight is a dauphin, which is just retreival work?

I know everybody took the piss when JAR made all IFR work twin and two up, but if there is a successful model in the states, should they not be looking at that instead of the JAR model?

MD 900 :confused:

[Wallaby]

I totally support the paras in this instance. Every member of my crew has the right to vito any mission if they feel unsafe or uncomfortable at any stage. I fly a sophistocated ifr twin most of the time but when I am flying a vfr single at night, I have the rule that if I think that conditions might require that I have to fly at some stage of the mission, with no visual horizon (ie. flight with reference to instruments alone) then I decline the mission. To me, flying on instruments in a non ifr, non stabilised, non auto-piloted aircraft is courting trouble. I know that it is legal but is it wise? I believe that if you have to fly with reference to instruments alone then its ifr and the aircraft and pilot should be properly rated.
To me the most important piece of equipment for night operations is a stability system preferrably with an auto-pilot. Its nice to have the second engine but its not as important as the automated systems. I believe that the Qld Govt should restrict the EMS singles in the state to day vfr ops only unless they have stability and auto-pilot with an ifr rated pilot with extensive ifr background and currency in ifr ops. In relation to 2 pilot ops, I have flown in some multi crew ops where the workload is much higher than single pilot ops with a well equipt aircraft. A well trained crewie can assist the pilot immensely and ease the workload during demanding oparations.
Its about time that CASA started being realistic in relation to night ops. You can't tell me that flying 50 miles out to sea on a black night to drop off a ships pilot isn't ifr ops. How can Casa say that its nvfr. How many more good people have to die?

[donut king]

A very wise and logical man you are, Wallaby!

Can't agree with you more! I fly a 76, day/night/ifr/ 2 crew..... However, at night, I still think or treat it as IFR( maintaining MOCA, stable maneuvers, reference to instruments...etc).

The rules are minimum standards, but our attitude towards the flight/ environment will save or kill us!!!!

D.K

[Chairmanofthebored]

What would a medic know anyway?

The US model is SPIFR but flawed by the level of currency and training that most pilots recieve. Just because they have an IFR machine doesn't mean that they maintain to that standard. Most accidents in the US medical system result from CFIT in marginal wx.

I don't understand the comment about the geography in Australia. Last time I was there it was flat.......just like the ocean they were flying over.

Auto hover is a real blessing but not completely necessary. Plenty of Rescue operators do without. The added weight to all this is the big penalty.....ask the 412 drivers in Cairns.

[Autorotate]

MD900 - Most of the EMS operators in Australia and NZ for that matter use twin engine machines.

Westpac Auckland - BK117
Westpac Wellington - BK117
Westpac Christchurch - BK117
Westpac Hamilton - Bell 222
Tranzrail Taupo - AS350
Westpac Sydney - BK117
Westpac Wollongong - BK117
Careflight Sydney - BK117
Childflight Sydney - SA365N2
Hunter Rescue Newcastle - Bell 412
Hunter Rescue Tamworth - Bell 407
Careflight Orange - Agusta A119 Koala
Adelaide EMS Machine - Bell 412
Vic Pol - SA365N3 and N2s
Melbourne Ambulance Service - 2 x Bell 412s
New Service in Perth - Bell 412
Careflight Gold Coast - Bell 412
Surf Lifesaving Gold Coast - AS350
QES - 3 x Bell 412s

Others that I am not sure of but include Bell 206L, BK117 etc. Sorry to those I missed out on.

Autorotate.

[Nigel Osborn]

Chairman

I'm surprised you find winching a person out of the sea on a black night, maybe stormy as well, to be quite easy and safe without an auto hover system.

The Cairns 412 has used their auto hover quite a few times whereas QES other two 412 have waited till daylight; in fact that's what happened when the previous 407 ditched recently.

After 44 years in helicopters, having had to do rescues from Bell 47s to S76s, I know which I would prefer to use on a black night!

[griffinblack]

Chairman,

With an attitude like that you must be a real joy to fly with. But no doubt your exceptional skill overcomes any CRM shortfalls.

[Gomer Pylot]

Chair, not a good troll. Big hook, but you need more bait! :rolleyes:

[Chairmanofthebored]

having spent the last 4 years with medics I am overqualified to pass sentence on them:}
their knowledge is largely selective and they are mostly ignorant to the workings or requirements of rotary aviation. just ask one to explain how the thing stays in the air.
for them to pass judgement on single or twins is like me sticking my nose into their business and refusing to take a patient because I percieve a risk to myself. just shut up, strap in and get on with it. if you don't want to fly then get back into a land unit. leave the transport stuff to us.

Nige.YES: autohover is excellent. still many have and still will manage to do without it. see: bass strait 1999 - sydney to hobart.

What would I know about home flungdung. few hills down near sydney and melbourne, a couple around cairns (in fact i bombed around to a tower or two on those ones) but mostly if you are in queensland there ain't much to hit above 3000. As for over the water...DUH.

griffin: CRM is a doddle by yourself. What would a griffin driver know anyway. I don't need 4 people to help me into and out of a confined...and I don't need your smart arse comments about my CRM.

howzat gomer?:bored:

[200psi]

Chair

I dont think Nigel was suggesting that Autohover is required by day but he is right about night work I would like to know how you have done it by night, particularly since in some acft you can't run the nitesun and winch at the same time.

You must fly a Bell and be blessed with good visibility because as someone of your experience in 76s will know that visual reference out of a 76 is not flash and I am very thankfull to have all the assistance I can muster.

As for the Syd - Hob 99 the only night rescue that I am aware of was performed by a Navy Seahawk using autohover.

[Too Cloudy]

Anyone got the CAO's in front of them re winching over water at night? Can't remember it word for word but there is reference to a system (read auto hover) that measures speed/height over water.

AS for me, the paramedics I have worked with over the years, may not know how it flys, but they can certainly interpret when they are not happy with a situation. There's not a chance in hell that I would go into a black hole at night without having someone in the back with their heads out the door. Give them a bit more credit.

[sarboy w****r]

Wallaby,

I believe that if you have to fly with reference to instruments alone then its ifr and the aircraft and pilot should be properly rated

Absolutely. But am I being naiive in thinking that someone might fly in conditions using reference to instruments alone, and attempt to call this vfr?

UK military rules:

you fly IFR when any of following apply:

a) IMC
b) Controlled air space at night
c) When in airspace for which IFR is mandatory

Point (a) seems to apply in this case...

Genuine question... Is this not the case for you guys?

SBW

...Unless we're talking pseudo-IFR, ie IFR in all but name - dark night, over water, no NVGs...

[trimpot]

chairmanoftheboorish

Just a few points for you to consider.

As 200psi pointed out, no one was rescued at night by a non-autohover aircraft during the 1999 Sydney-to-Hobart. Yes, they are heavy (especially on the Cairns 412, not so much on the S76) but you can't do without them at night, over water, if you want to actually rescue someone.

You don't need any help getting into a confined area? That really depends on your definition of confined doesn't it?

You said, "I don't understand the comment about the geography in Australia". That's right, you don't.

You said, "What would a Medic know anyway", you must be a pleasure to work with. Having worked with them for 16 years, it would be my opinion that some of them know quite a bit, certainly enough to make informed judgements about their own lives. Yes, there are fools in every occupation, we only need to look at you for a good example.

It would seem by your comments to griffin and flungdung that you can dish it out but can't take it and I don't think we need your smart arse comments full stop.

[belly tank]

Too Cloudy,

CAO 29.11 (6.4) States

When the flight attitude, height and position of the helicopter cannot be maintained by reference to external objects adequitely illuminated by ground or celestial lighting, a helicopter shall not engage in winching operations over the surface of the sea or a body of water at night unless it is equipped with,

(a) as specified in para 4.2 and app vii of sect 20.18

which states,

PARA 4.2 20.18

"a helicopter shall not be operated inder IFR unless it is equipped with,

a) the flight and nav instruments specified in app vii,viii or ix to this section.

b) any other instruments indicators specified in the fright manual

c) the minimum lighting requirements in app v

d) AN APPROVED AUTOMATIC PILOT, OR AUTOMATIC STABILISATION SYSTEM, FOR OTHER THAN NIGHT VFR FLIGHTS EXCEPT THAT IN THE CASE OF SUCH A FLIGHT WHICH WILL INVOLVE MORE THAN 30 MINS FLIGHT OVER WATER OR LAND WHERE AIRCRAFT ALTITUDE CANNOT BE MAINTAINED BY REFERENCE TO GROUND LIGHTING, AN APPROVED AUTOSTABILISATIONS SYSTEM OR A 2 PILOT CREW SHALL BE CARRIED.

[Nigel Osborn]

Chairman

In 1999 I was one of the auto hover S76 pilots that Ausar failed to call out for reasons I won't go into here.

As Trimpot and others have said, I don't believe anyone was winched out of the sea at night by a crew in a non auto machine.

By requiring auto hover, I mean winching at night either from small boats or directly out of the sea. I do not mean large ships which have plenty of lighting and visual cues.

I see on the news yesterday that the ATSB have recommended some sort of SAS to be fitted. Maybe they read Pprune too!

[griffinblack]

Chairman,

You’re fighting above your weight division. Stick to junior league, you have some way to go before you make 1st grade.

Griffin has nothing to do what I fly. It’s a callsign - look at my profile. I’ll even give you a hint – Marlin, Possum, Redback and Cavalier.

[Wallaby]

SARBOY,
there is quite a lot of ifr flight being done in this country under the guise of "NGT VFR". Not only in the EMS game but also in the ships pilot transfer field. A lot of these flights are being carried out on black nights out to sea in jet rangers, md500's and squirrels. Some use two pilots and some have mini stab systems but some of them don't and they are still vfr machines operating in ifr conditions. Casa have just been turning a blind eye to it for many years.

What a small number of the old school people in the ems industry (and some newer ones) can't seem to get through their heads is that there is always another way to get the job done. It might not be as fast or as effective but it can be done by other means or at another time. What you have to weigh up is:- " is it worth risking an aircraft and 4 or 5 crew on a high risk mission when the job could be done another way." Could it be done more safely by waiting until first light, or using a boat, or carrying the patient to a bigger clearing, or calling in a bigger or better equipt aircraft. I think that what gets a lot of people killed is ego. We all suffer from it but it is important to know when to put it aside and admit that the risks outweigh the gain. We can't save everybody.

[Too Cloudy]

Thanks for that belly tank,

The last bit of CAO 29.11 refers to "At all times when the helicopter is operated below the IMC spped, the equipment associated with the automatic pilot and/or automatic stabilisation shall provide the pilot (s) with an essily interpreted and accurate display of the height of the helicopter above the surface of the sea or water, ground spped forwards, backwards, to the left and right and vertical speed in the correct sense"

[MD900 Explorer]

Autorotate,

Sorry, i have been away for the last few days. I note your reply, and duly pull neck in :hmm:

MD 900

[wineboy]

The problem is not the number of 'engines' it's based on a number of things;

1. Pilot Training
2. Aircraft Equipment
3. Aircrewman Training
4. SOP's

How many engine failures has there been in Australia in the past years???

I am fed up with the clients (para's, ambo's, administrators) tell us how to conduct our operation. I don't remember telling them that they should have used a 'blah' or, performed a 'blah' or indeed inserted a 'blah' in the patient in order for them to keep them alive.

My job is to get them from a to b as safe as I know how and the rules allow.

The problem is that certain individuals (pilots) go flying when perhaps they should not!

The EMS operation should have;

1. An auto-pilot
2. An Aircrewman that is trainied to a standard that permits him/her to operate the aircraft as well as a '2nd pilot' would.

Wineboy.

[NickLappos]

Way to go, Wineboy, right on!

The number of engines is being demanded, but it is the night, IFR and hover equipment that is what they really want, I think, and it seems that you agree.

Strange world!

[S76Heavy]

Considering the fact that they have to convince non-aviation types to spend more on more capable machines to enable them to do a proper and most of all SAFE job, I'm not surprised that they mention engine numbers as the starting point. After all, it's not the pilots or engineers who know the difference that buy the tools, it's the paper pushers who don't know anything about equipment and why flying at night in an unstabilised VFR machine is a bit more difficult than FS 2000.
As long as further down the line the real message gets across and gets acted upon I have no problem whatsoever with the way they bring it up.

[peter manktelow]

wow....this subject has received a good "flogging" but here is my penny's worth.......

I believe a major component of this problem is education or rather , lack of education. Overwater flying throws up some unique difficulties. Flying overwater at night even more. Trying to hover over water at night without some sort of auto hover is ..........

Many pilots may benefit from having some form of detailed briefing with emphasis on the danger of attempting to hover at night over water. Could I suggest ground training similiar to the way "flight into IMC by VFR pilots" has been handled.

Pilots who have done night overwater SAR , are all to well aware of the difficulty , risk and "pucker factor" even with auto hover equipped helicopters.

Trying to do it without auto hover , without another pilot etc etc......has an almost inevitable result.

A good project for someone in CASA ?????


:8

[trimpot]

CASA ??????

CASA hasn't done anything about it yet! Useless bunch of fools.:*

[High Nr]

You have never held a CASA Licence, and never will.

But yet you cast stones. Wooo

CASA has indeed set standards......read the AIP, CAR, CAO, CAAP and RFM. [And the proposed CASR's]

And read them before you give some smartass reply......maybe you will learn something!



High Nr

I have edited your post to remove a name.


Heliport

[peter manktelow]

oh dear...please forgive me if I have transgressed by suggesting CASA as the appropriate conduit for some form of education on the topic of night overwater hovering. Who else is there ?

ANYHOW , that was not my point !

My point was that ....I suspect there are a number of pilots out there who are blissfully unaware of WHY they should NOT attempt to hover over water at night unless they have some form of auto hover , a second pilot , preferably 2 engines , regular training , strict SOP's etc etc etc.

From my experience , night overwater helicopter flying , specifically when operating below 500 feet , is fraught with many traps for the unwary and still some for the odd "grey beard" who has a lapse of attention.

Fly safe and enjoy

:8

[Rotor1]

...One engine or two engines in the end you have only one transmission...

[trimpot]

High Nr, you must have recovered from the lashings myself and others have given you, either that, or you must enjoy it! :E

'Tis true I have never held a CASA licence and never will, but then again I have never held a medical practitioners licence but I know that the health-care system in this country is stuffed.

The fact that I have never held a licence shows just how inept CASA is, as was pointed out at the recent SAR/EMS conference in Newcastle. Lack of Aircrewman Licencing was shown to be a major problem with the OZ SAR/EMS scene and one of the issues that was given top priority by those that attended.

Why can't you fly on NVG's yet in OZ? They can in New Zealand. We have people in the industry with the experience, we have organisations that are willing to spend the money. Don't know? Well I'll tell you, it's because of the feet draging and @rse covering in CASA.

Oh, and don't worry I have read all those publications you listed but they are not much good if they not enforced, not adequate or outdated. Thankfully I don't have to read them anymore.

By the way, I hope I am wrong and CASA do start swinging the big stick and change the rules and requirements for these types of operations, as the ATSB has recomended, but I'm not holding my breath.:hmm:

[soggyboxers]

I remember the bad old days of carrying out night rescues over the water with no auto-hover. Then we had a tragic accident in the northern North Sea, resulting in the needless deaths of a number of friends, and a limited auto hover system was developed for the Bell 212 by Bristow (financed in part, I believe, by Shell). What a marvellous difference it made. This was back in 1982. In other places it seems that there is still a long way to go. I remember Bristow selling the system to the National safety Council? in Australia in the early 1980s and if it was available then I can't see why it wouldn't be now.
Around 150 years ago small children worked and died in the coal mines dragging coal in wickerwork baskets, but something called progress came along and changed all that. Surely, it's time that a modern country like Australia legislated such that its night rescue helicopters were compelled to be properly equipped for the task, and if need be, provided the money to make it possible.

[The Nr Fairy]

I remember seeing an article - here (http://www.casa-x.org/generalaviation/Failure%20of%20Aviation%20Enforcement.pdf) - which alleges some serious structural and organisational failures in CASA which led to all sorts of injustices.

I know it's 104 pages, I'm not expecting anyone to read it all (I did!), but at a quick glance through it does it strike a chord ?

[High Nr]

I transgressed and soiled your sandpit.....a cardinal sin which I will try to next avoid.
But please be consistant, nicknames are just as [if not more] identifying as surnames in this industry......especially when that name has been said many times here, but yip, no red highlites from the headmaster.

Not such a Trimpot....

The fact that I have never held a licence shows just how inept CASA is, as was pointed out at the recent SAR/EMS conference in Newcastle. Lack of Aircrewman Licencing was shown to be a major problem with the OZ SAR/EMS scene and one of the issues that was given top priority by those that attended.

I was there over those few days, and this topic certainly did'nt suggest the Licensing of Crewman, however it did mention and reinforce that a crew, either two pilots or pilot and crewman should act as a team, rather than individuals....I have no problem with that viewpoint whatsoever. However, a certified Single Pilot IFR aircraft is 1000% better than under equipped aircraft requiring two folk up front.
I would always suggest two pilots, as they have the extra capacity over a crewperson, and when hassles with a patient in the back occurs, then you usually loose the crewperson from the front to the back.

Why can't you fly on NVG's yet in OZ?

You can!!

The Victorian Police have done a fully approved CASA trial, which worked very well, and another un named operator has been doing operations with them.
The legislation does not preclude their use, its just never been addressed the way that Mxxx Txxxx [I would say his name, but I would be banned] and his team have done it. And full credit to them.

I would be very surprised if there arn't 10 - 20 dedicated SAR/EMS aircraft in Oz with full NVG capacity within, lets say, 2 years.
This delay is a logistics one, with training, manual rewrites, aircraft mods and the acquisition of the 4th Generation NVG's themselves [Still a security issue] and of course $$$$

[trimpot]

On the matter of Aircrewman licencing at the recent conference in Newcastle, I will defer to you, High Nr, as you say you were there. I was not but I was reporting what was relayed to me by people who were. Sometimes these thing get lost in translation (helicopter joke ):} .

In the matter of NVG's, I agree with you that they will "come of age" in OZ in the next few years, but it has been a long hard road. Ask anyone involved with the introduction of the S76 onto the RAAF SAR contract. The original machines were fully NVG compatible, and we had the crews and the money, yet CASA would not allow the use of NVG's. So much so that the "NVGness" (for wont of a better word) was removed from the machines on the subesquent contract.

Yes, you can fly on NVG's with the blessing of CASA IF it is a trial. As I said, it has been a long hard road, over 10 years thanks to CASA.

And by the way Gen 3 goggles are fine, better that that Russian cr@p! ;)

[sikhorsey]

Pruners,

Without commenting on any specific incidents, I see this debate from the perspective that my aviation career has given me thus far.

The view point that I hold is that any aviation activity should be conducted with due regard to risk management. In the case of NVFR SAR/EMS ops the case could be presented as follows:
Residual risk = hazard + control measure.

Specific NVFR hazards are unusual attitudes resulting from reduced visual cues and inadvertant IMC due to not being able to see the cloud at night. Both of these conditions are inherent to NVFR ops and both can lead to catastrophic outcomes and therefore risk must be mitigated by control measures.

Control measures to mitigate these inherent hazards are;
1. Unusual attitudes. Stabilisation system/auto pilot and/or dual pilot depending on the amount of exposure to the hazard.
2. Inadvertant IMC. The ability to recover from the IIMC at lowest safe altitude leaves few safe options. An immediate transfer to an instrument scan followed by an IFR recovery is the safest, but requires training and preplanning. At a minimum the transfer to an instrument scan and recovery requires an IFR rated pilot in an IFR instrumented acft.

Once these control measures are in place the residual risk still exists and should be communicated, understood and deemed acceptable to as many of the stakeholders as possible in the activity. This includes all members of the crew, medical pers, patients, pax, regulators and managers.

The single / multi engine debate is not specific to NVFR though a multi engine acft is more likely to have the control measures outlined above and hence clouds the issue.

It does appear to me that SPNVFR SAR/EMS ops in non IFR equipped and crewed acft are not addressing inherent NVFR risks in this manner in Australia and that I find is a tragedy just waiting to happen.