Air Ambulance rescue (Now incl post by the Paramedic - 9/11)

[huntnhound]

Have a look at this story in the Daily Mail 26/10/04

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/pages/galleries/index.html?in_gallery_id=4554&in_page_id=1055


Call me mr prudent if you like but

1. Where is the life jacket?
2. Where are the ropes?
3. Do the paramedics train for jumping onto car roofs out of helicopters?
4. What happens in the event of an engine failure?

Over to you


Huntnhound

[Heliport]

OK .................. Hi 'mr prudent' http://www.click-smilies.de/sammlung0304/aktion/action-smiley-030.gif


Superb job well done. :ok:
Time was of the essence. The trapped driver was up to his chest in water and couldn't open the door because of the strong current. The driver's window was partly open but couldn't be opened further becaue the electrics had failed. There was a danger the car might have been swept away. The paramedic got him out and he was airlifted to safety.

Oh dear, oh dear, oh dear, but what if it had all gone wrong? :(

Well, it didn't! AND a life was saved which might have been lost.

Congratulations to pilot Pete Barnes and paramedic Kevin Hodgson for taking the initiative.

Helicopters get more than enough negative publicity. On this occasion, most of the nationals ran the story, all praising the crew, and the Mail and Sun published agency photographs of the rescue.

Good to see some positive PR for a change. :ok: :ok: :ok:


http://img.dailymail.co.uk/img/galleries/helicopterescue/1helicopter5PA_350x330.jpg


http://img.dailymail.co.uk/img/galleries/helicopterescue/2helicopter4PA_350x300.jpg

http://img.dailymail.co.uk/img/galleries/helicopterescue/3helicopter3PA_350x280.jpg

http://img.dailymail.co.uk/img/galleries/helicopterescue/4helicopter2PA_250x350.jpg

http://img.dailymail.co.uk/img/galleries/helicopterescue/5helicopter1PA_350x260.jpg

[huntnhound]

Well yes thats one way of looking at it...

but you didnt answer the questions. Frightened of the truth?

[Hilico]

You don't work for the Daily Mail by any chance hunt? It sounds very much as though you have an 'angle', just like the rest of those sharks.

This was an emergency situation. Neither the aircraft nor the crew would be employed in such a manner unless there was imminent danger of loss of life. There's also the example of firemen who are trained to use a system for keeping track of who is in a burning building - unless the instant they arrive they can see a casualty in immediate peril, in which case they can just pile in and extract them as fast as possible. They don't get many complaints.

[Spunk]

To answer your questions....

1. due to the flood the "Helly Hansen" store was out of stock
2. According to JAR-OPS 3 it would have been illegal to attach any ropes to the helicopter and it takes quite a few days to get that essential hardware to be delivered by Eurocopter.
3. Nope
4. Since the paramedic is no longer inside the helicopter the pilot should be able to hover with OEI.
:E :E :E


Great job!!

[S76Heavy]

Superb job, well done.
Check the ANO, AFAIK there is as sentence somewhere that goes a bit like "nothing contained herein shall prevent anybody form taking any other action in order to save lives" or something similar. And even if it did not contain it, any responsible and professional crew would have weighed the options and decided on a course of action that would have minimised the risk to all involved.
So what's your beef huntnhound, or are you one of those bystanders that will watch people die and do nothing?

[Heliport]

mr prudent

"you didnt answer the questions"

Quite right. I didn't.
Since you're capable of looking at the photographs, I assumed weren't blind.
Since you're not blind, I assumed you already knew the answers to the first 2 questions and that you were trying to make your point in the form of rhetorical questions. (Questions asked for a purpose other than eliciting answers from others.)
Please correct me if I'm wrong so far.

Since you're posting in a helicopter forum, I assumed you also already knew the answer to 3 and 4 and they were also rhetorical questions.
If you don't, please say so and I'm sure someone will explain what would happen - we're a goldmine of information here.


If I'd been the driver, I'd be relieved that a very experienced pilot and a brave paramedic were in the vicinity and prepared to use their initiative.


http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v144/Heliport/1helicopter5PA_600.jpg

[huntnhound]

Thanks for the fast responses.

I dont have any particular beef...although I suppose the CAA may raise more than a few eyebrows.

How much risk was that driver really in? The water depth is around 18"-2` ..

all I`m saying is was that job worth the risk of possibly putting a perfectly good aircraft in a total loss situation...not to mention any injury to the crew?

[sss]

good on them i say,

2ft of water can send a car disappearing off down stream easily enough.

based just on those photos and no other information, i agree with what they have done,


you ask is the job worth it, - only they can answer that question as they are the ones doing the job its not for us to judge sitting at our computers looking at a picture in the safe warm and dry living room/office with the wonder of hindsight

people of the emergency services, hm forces etc put themselves on offer to help people that get into situations either by stupidty or accident, and i think they all do a good job and should be supported more.

[145kts]

Well done guys.
It could have turned out different.

BBC report Woman 'died crossing flood river'

A driver was swept away and killed after trying to cross a flooded river in a Land Rover, police believe.
Suzanne Smith from Hawkbatch in Bewdley was discovered by a canoeist on the River Rea at Neen Savage near Cleobury Mortimer, Shropshire on Sunday morning.

The 36-year-old was pronounced dead before being taken to the Royal Shrewsbury Hospital.

Police investigating Miss Smith's death believe the river was too high and swept her vehicle away at a ford.

Miss Smith's silver coloured Freelander Serengeti was found more than a quarter of a mile downstream from the ford on the unclassified road at Neen Savage.




http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/shropshire/3950761.stm

[Delta Julliet Golf]

Excellent rescue!

Life jacket? The water isn't that high.....

DJG

[TeeS]

Huntnhound

Sorry, but where does "Bond Air Ambulance" come into this?

TeeS

[Bravo 99 (AJB)]

Guys havent we had this discusion before
the boys did the job they felt best at the time, with what time they had available to do it in and the result was good so whats the problem.

I have been to incidents like this and i wish my crew had a helicopter on hand at the time.
well done to the crew keep it up boys.

Bravo 99

[Flying Lawyer]

prudent huntnhoundI suppose the CAA may raise more than a few eyebrows Who knows? But, if they do more than raise a few eyebrows, I'll happily represent the pilot free of charge.

Well done Pete Barnes and the paramedic. :ok:

Tudor Owen.

[HeliEng]

I thought that the BO 105 in the picture was PAS's machine???

[Vfrpilotpb]

The Pilot and the paramed can have a pint with me anytime at all, its people like that who are the sort who will rescue a civvie without thought for themselve, their skill and training just takes over, if these two were in a War situation that would count as bravery beyond the call of normall duty,

Normal duty being where you indeed have the tin hat, the flak jacket and ropes, and a marshall on the ground, the hot flask and the tin of butty's.

Sadley the reporter suggested the pilot was fighting his machine to get where he was, I dont think so really, he seems totally at ease and in full control!

"Seize the moment, for it may not last" seems to fit the bill.


PeterR-B
Vfr

[huntnhound]

Fantastic.
Some really useful observations, from, no doubt some excellent brave pilots.

I can honestly wish you all the best for the future in whatever you do, and the best of luck as well. Clearly engine failures and rear rotor failures are just something that happens to someone else.

"Excellent rescue!

Life jacket? The water isn't that high.....

DJG"


and if the water wasnt that high...why didnt he just get out of the car on the downstream side and wade into the bank

:D

[Flying Lawyer]

Just out of curiosity huntnhound, are you a pilot?

I get the impression you're not, but would be happy for that impression to be corrected if I'm wrong.

[lionco]

Maybe hunthoud would prefere to have all helicopters and indeed any other pursuit involving the chance of danger, banned! Just in case you understand.:yuk:

[huntnhound]

In answer to "Just out of curiosity huntnhound, are you a pilot?

I get the impression you're not, but would be happy for that impression to be corrected if I'm wrong."


I cant see the relevance, but if it makes you happy I`m not. But I have over 1200 hrs observing.

And dont start me off on pursuits or the danger of pusuits..a subject I know a lot about.

:eek:

[Auscan]

Good Job Gents,

A similar situation in Canada a while back. A depressed individual decided to escape from his institution and hang himslef from the goal posts at a local high school. The local copper chopper picked him up with the flir in the middle of the night after just doing the deed. The boys landed on the field and cut the man down. Life saved. No red tape. No complaints about landing approvals. Once again good job.

[Heliport]

huntnhound

I've changed the title of your thread to remove 'Bond'.
I think the Great North Air Ambulance based at Teesside is operated by PAS.

If I'm wrong, let me know and I'll change it back.

Heliport

[S76Heavy]

Sounds like sour grapes from someone with 1200 almost-flying hours.. .:rolleyes:

Flying is a calculated risk, so was this rescue. The engine loss exposure time with the driver on board would have been minimal, especially if it was windy.
So stick to observing as long as you find the rule book more important than situational awareness and airmanship and leave the decision making to real aviation professionals.

[Bomber ARIS]

The facts: A highly trained pilot. An experienced Paramedic crewmember, used to thinking & working "outside the box". A multi-engined helicopter, maintained to UK CAA Public Transport standards. A one-off situation.

The potential consequences of inaction: :confused:


What happens next????????



I find it truly regrettable to witness the indoctrination of an individual to the extent that humanity takes a back seat. To slavishly follow the Health & Safety ethos that pervades today, with no allowance for random acts of compassion; not to believe that a human being may weigh up the odds and make a calculated decision - I weep for the future!

[EESDL]

I hope that HH is not the observer on a chopper that may possibly find me in such a predicament and has a say in the decision to help.
There did not seem anything 'gung-ho' about the crews' actions and the decision to act before the car was swept over that weir appears to have been the correct one.
May I suggest that HH is awarded an 'ology in Hindsight and differing.

I can see what you are getting at HH, in some pics it does indeed look like it should have been feasible for the driver to get out unaided. I would imagine that the fact that no one else had bothered to wade to his aid from the many ranks of onlookers gives us the answer to your query.

[huntnhound]

With regard to ......"So stick to observing as long as you find the rule book more important than situational awareness and airmanship and leave the decision making to real aviation professionals"

Why not visit the A.A.I.B where you can see the results of some other `Aviation Professionals`.

But like I said before.....It probably wont happen to you!

[S76Heavy]

No, it probably won't happen to me. Because my current aircraft would not fit between the trees and produce too much downdraft to even contemplate a similar rescue. Even if I had a crewmember to spare..

As long as you stick to your personal limits (and the law, obviously), stop patronising others with more experience. This crew took a decision based on experience, personal limits and situational awareness and weighed the risks. How do you feel about the B206 crew that rescued survivors from the Potomac? Would you patronise them for flying single engined in icing conditions and taking unnecessary risks?

Just for fun surf the net for what even a shallow layer of water can do if it moves fast enough. You might be surprised.

[sss]

of course there is a possibility of a malfunction of some description

but likewise you could get a blow out on a tyre at 70mph in a car the effects can be just as much a disaster. should we stop driving cars, should policemen not drive at 100+mph in case they may get a puncture?

there is a risk at anything, are you saying that the rescue should not have been done?

[huntnhound]

Its a matter for the individual of course.

The air ambulance in the UK is NOT a search and rescue..nor are the Police.

If nothing untoward happens...every ones a winner ...lovely jubberly...back home for tea and medals ...and heaps of praise.

Life is good ...right decision made...real action heros at work...fantastic Well done every one... How you do it I`ll never know.. What skill...amazing stuff.

I hope I dont sound too patronising now...you are simply the best in the world.

If I crash my car at 40mph I have a good chance of living...
You £$&* it up at 200` and every one dies.

But like I said before it wont happen to you..it happens to someone else, so dont wory and enjoy the medals:p

[sss]

are you proposing that the crew should do nothing?

[volrider]

Tell you what worries me most about this thread boys, its that Audi's are obviously sh*t in the wet!! Glad I have my tried and trusted Lada.;)
Anyway I think HH is only playing devils advocate I am sure he would do excactly the same thing as the guys in the 105 however he has a point all plaudits to the crew but what if.......
God forbid that ever happens of course.

[widgeon]

bandage one, a BK117 ,rescued a man from quite far out in Lake ontario in a similar fashion some time in the 90"s or late 80"s.
the machine later burnt out at Buttonville.
USed to have a copy of the news article.

[John Eacott]

Hunthounds,

What a miserable git you must be to work with: unfortunately we are going down the extreme OH&S regime with which you seem endeared, I just hope you don't look after us as a Worksafe Inspector :rolleyes:


Well done, "stunt pilot" Peter Barnes ;) and Kevin Hodgson.

At least it was only an Audi.........:yuk:

[Pub User]

hh

If you're to achieve any level of credibility here you have to suggest a better course of action, not just harp on about how unbelievably reckless this crew was.

You're right, engines and tail rotors do occasionally fail, but not very often. Do you think the crew just blindly did what you consider inappropriate? Or did they asses the situation and take what they saw as the best course of action?

[VeeAny]

Well done Pete and crew, just for trying never mind succeeding.



V.

[ShyTorque]

This self-righteous attitude makes me puke. Some crews amongst us have spent a career flying SAR aircraft without a single engined hover capability and just a single tail rotor. Did it myself for quite a few years. So, according to this argument, we were endangering the aircraft almost every time we went to a job. If a donk had stopped while we were over a ship, or a slope, or a cliff, I wouldn't be here talking about it. So what, it was what we were trained to do and paid to do it - but it didn't mean the risk was any less.

This crew will have made a professional judgment / risk assessment here and it worked - good on them.

I was faced with a situation like this with a police aircraft late one night. After assessment I declined to help because I couldn't safely achieve a result and might well have blown the survivors off their perch into the river, but they were on an upturned boat at the base of a weir (they had just gone over it) rather than sheltered against downwash inside a car. We elected to illuminate the scene for the fire service with the Nightsun instead, as they were able to get to the survivors with a small boat, which obviously WASN'T possible in this case. We were criticised in the debrief by the fire service for NOT hovering over them on the congested bank and allowing them to tie a rope to the aircraft to take out to the middle of the river (!). A no win situation.

However, perhaps Huntnhound would prefer that no-one ever tries to rescue him or a member of his family if they found themselves in a similar situation? :rolleyes:

[helmet fire]

HH,
I dont understand what the dangers are anyway.
What is the danger of doing a hover exit? They are routine.
What is the danger of doing a hover entry? Also routine.
The danger of "rear rotor failure" is negligable over the time it would affect this scenario.
The danger of engine is negligable over the time it would affect this scenario.
The probability of serious injury or death resulting from the almost impossibility of an engine failure/tailrotor failure is remote in itself.
The BO105 is a very controllable helicopter due to its rotorhead.

The danger of being swept away whilst wading out, and having to face all the perils of a swift water rescue is NOT negligable.


So again I have to ask: what dangers are you concerned about?

Just in case you think that hover exits/entries are dangerous (because they look like fun), both procedures are so straight forward I once had a kid (as in young goat) succesfully conduct a hover entry behind the bloke we were picking up out of the bush!! If a goat can do it with no OH&S approved 4 day course, I'm thinking it is not rocket science to any human being. But apparently you know something the goat and I dont...............


PS: I think you forgot to question the lack of hearing protection on the patient. How could you have missed such an obvious peril?
:confused: :eek: :{

[Giovanni Cento Nove]

RUM, SODOMY & THE LIFEJACKET


It’s almost 200 years since Lord Nelson’s famous naval victory over the French and Spanish in the Battle of Trafalgar. To kick-start the anniversary celebrations, an actor dressed as Nelson posed for pictures on the River Thames at Greenwich. But before he was allowed to board an RNLI Lifeboat, safety officials made him wear a lifejacket over his 19th century admiral’s uniform.

How would Nelson have fared if he’s been subject to modern health and safety regulations.




You are now on the deck of the recently renamed British Flagship, HMS Appeasement.


"Order the signal. Hardy."

Aye, aye, sir.

Hold on, that’s not what I dictated to the signal officer. What’s the meaning of this?

Sorry, sir?

England expects every person to do his duty, regardless of race, gender, sexual orientation, religious persuasion or disability. What gobbledegook is this?

Admiralty policy, I’m afraid, sir. We’re an equal opportunities employer now. We had the devil’s own job getting “England” past the censors, lest it be considered rascist.

Gadzooks, Hardy. Hand me my pipe and tobacco.

Sorry, sir. All naval vessels have been designated smoke-free working environments.

In that case, break open the rum ration. Let us splice the mainbrace to steel the men before battle.

The rum ration has been abolished, Admiral. It’s part of the Government’s policy on binge drinking.

Good heavens. Hardy. I suppose we’d better get on with it. Full speed ahead.

I think you’ll find that there’s a 4 mph speed limit in this stretch of water.

Dammit, man, we are on the eve of the greatest sea fight in history. We must advance with all dispatch. Report from the crow’s nest, please.

That won’t be possible, sir.

What?

Health and Safety have closed the crow’s nest, sir. No harness. And they say that rope ladder doesn’t meet regulations. They won’t let anyone up there until a proper scaffolding can be erected.

Then get me the ship’s carpenter without delay, Hardy.

He’s busy knocking up a wheelchair access to the fo’c’sle Admiral.

Wheelchair access? I’ve never heard anything so absurd.

Health and safety again, sir. We have to provide a barrier-free environment for the differently abled.

Differently abled? I’ve only one arm and one eye and I refuse even to hear mention of the word. I didn’t rise to the rank of admiral by playing the disability card.

Actually, sir, you did. The Royal Navy is under-represented in the areas of visual impairment and limb deficiency.

Whatever next? Give me a full sail. The salt spray beckons.

A couple of problems there, too, sir. Health and safety won’t let the crew up the rigging without crash helmets. And they don’t want anyone breathing in too much salt – haven’t you seen the adverts?

I’ve never heard such infamy. Break out the cannon and tell the men to stand by to engage the enemy.

The men are a bit worried about shooting at anyone, Admiral.

What? This is mutiny.

It’s not that, sir. It’s just that they’re afraid of being charged with murder if they actually kill anyone. There’s a couple of legal aid lawyers on board, watching everyone like hawks.

Then how are we to sink the Frenchies and the Spanish?

Actually, sir, we’re not.

We’re not?

No, sir. The Frenchies and Spanish are our European partners now. According to the Common Fisheries Policy, we shouldn’t even be in this stretch of water. We could get hit with a claim for compensation.

But you must hate a Frenchman as you hate the devil.

I wouldn’t let the ship’s diversity co-ordinator hear you saying that sir. You’ll be up on a disciplinary.

You must consider every man an enemy who speaks ill of your King.

Not any more, sir. We must be inclusive in this multicultural age. Now put on your Kevlar vest, it’s the rules.

Don’t tell me – health and safety. Whatever happened to rum sodomy and the lash?

As I explained, sir, rum is off the menu. And there’s a ban on corporal punishment.

What about sodomy?

I believe it’s to be encouraged sir.

In that case – kiss me Hardy.

[Flying Lawyer]

Brilliant. Very funny. :ok: :D :)

(And, sadly, very true. )

[airborne_artist]

Huntnhound wrote:

The air ambulance in the UK is NOT a search and rescue..nor are the Police

In a civilised society we have a moral duty to do what we can to help our fellow citizens in peril.

Do you want to live in a civilised society? If so, play by the rules!

[EjectEject]

I spotted this Post today and as it seemed to have gone the normal way of going way off the subject to generally bashing everyone's views to death, I pondered whether I should bother.

Well, the following might help others to consider options for the future should they come across similar incidents when out flying or should they be sent as part of an emergency service response.

The UK Police have for some time been concerned about such incidents followng the death of a Fireman that drowned during a cold water rescue incident. As a result, groups of UK emergency service staff, including Police search teams, search managers, Ambulance staff (what level I am not aware of) and also Police Air Ops staff have begun to receive training. The term cold water rescue relates to inland water features, such as small lakes, rivers, canals and other small water features. The original post shows a classic situation that HEMS or Police Air Ops crews could find themselves in.

As a result of this training, we now carry life jackets and throwing lines to give ourselves another option. These are NOT for use in the aicraft, but after landing out nearby. We are then able to don the PPE and use the lines to "contain" the situation until the correct cold water rescue organisation for our area attends. And don't expect the Fire & Rescue Service to do that as many are now withdrawing their water rescue option.

Having been exposed to the training I notice posts talking about "its only 2' feet of water" etc. Experts will talk of a lot less than that to cause drowning. Its the power of the flow that is the danger in these types of incidents. During training I was exposed to this and it makes you think twice and plan to survive. We were taught first about never going into the water. But if you had to, how to cross fast flowing rivers, streams etc, what PPE that must be worn, if you loose your footing, how to deal with being swept away, how to get out the water, if you get to the bank etc. And lots more. I have also seen posts saying that "life jackets", no need for them, water again was only 2' high. Well, once you get washed away, then you will need it and you tire very very quickly.

There are many experts out there that are more qualified to talk in detail about the "what if's" on this incident. I am just someone who has had training in cold water rescues in case I come across this type of incident. And yes, I can sit and analyse the images to talk about what I would have done instead.

However, if you have not had the training or you don't carry the kit - what would you do? - you would do your best at the time. And from the looks of things, they probably did.

I hope that the above might spring some HEMS or Police Air Ops users who have as yet not done anything about looking at other options. Its an eye opener when you go through the training

[Fortyodd]

"although I suppose the CAA may raise more than a few eyebrows"

Having found myself in a similar scenario a couple of years ago I found that the CAA, in the guise of our Flight Ops Inspector, did indeed raise an eyebrow and came to visit the following day.
He visited the site of the incident, went through all our paperwork and asked several relevant questions. Once he was happy that we had taken a decision to act as a crew, considered the alternatives, (and tried most of them), and used the aircrafts role equipment to minimize the risk and ensure the safety of all on board and on the ground, he said "Well done" and went on his way.
Got a nice letter from the family of the casualty as well :) always a bonus!

"Its a matter for the individual of course"

Actually, No. I truly believe that this is a matter for the whole crew - and unless they were all happy then it wouldn't have happened.

[exhemsdog]

Well done guys, good effort - really surprised on this forum how many people are quick to pick holes in a job that was done in reaction to an emergency call !!
How can a prat like HH make such a point after such a successfull rescue? is beyond me. Flying an air ambulance / police helicopter calls for such actions to be considered daily and the pilot is faced daily with such decisions - would any Normal person fly away from such a situation without at least weighing up the odds - Pete B obviously decided in the little time available on the day that this was possible (as it proved it was) That is what he is paid to do - make difficult decisions and live by them
I suggest HH just creeps back into his warm cumfy office and does not stick his nose into areas he is obviously not versed in - ANY EMS pilot worth their salt would probably of done the same on the day - other pilots would let some one die whilst reading the books / asking the CAA to check it is possible - I'm just sorry some bright spark was there with a camera to capture the moment for such types with hind sight to coment on.

[Heliport]

really surprised on this forum how many people are quick to pick holes in a job that was done in reaction to an emergency call !!

:confused:

Have there been many people picking holes?
There's been overwhelming support for the crew.

[Tony Chambers]

huntnhound mmmm name says it all really. 2-3 ft of fast moving water, hyperthermia me thinks. Our air ambulance and Police support units do an excellent job and are under constant scrutiny by the public and press alike. That is until your cars nicked or your in agony on the side of the motorway and need to get to hospital double quick time.
So whats your point huntnhound? Well done to the crew on that day and to all crews throughout the UK keep it up.

[exhemsdog]

I agree on this TOPIC heliport, but I did say FORUM - just browse and look at all the nit pickings going on - I guess I mixed up my feeling for the whole Forum on the present Topic, whilst reading all the postings. Overall more people are having a go rather than making constructive points.
Be happy for people who do well - It takes 27 muscles to frown, and only 8 to smile!!!

[Helinut]

Huntnhound,

So if what these guys did is so bad, presumably they shouldn't have done it So what exactly are you suggesting should have happened?

If they did not do what they did, presumably they land beside the raging torrent and wait for it to subside, so that they can take the body to the mortuary.

Or am I missing something?

In the role of a police observer, you must surely have thought of what you would do with your crew in a similar situation. Are you saying you would simply have videoed the situation for the coroner's court and then flown home??

[Heliport]

Excerpt from Teesside Journal news report River rescue heroes hailed

A paramedic was hailed as a hero last night after he risked his life to rescue a trapped motorist swept into a raging river.

Air ambulance pilot Peter Barnes and paramedic Kevin Hodgson made the daring rescue at Stanhope Ford, Bishop Auckland, after a man in his 40s tried to cross the river, which was swollen after heavy rain.

The air ambulance crew arrived on the scene at 2pm where they found fire crews struggling to reach the man's Audi estate, which had been swept out into the river and was slowly filling with water.
With the water level reaching the motorist's chest and no time to wait for a helicopter from RAF Boulmer, the paramedics decided to attempt their own rescue - despite having no specialised winch equipment and putting their own lives on the line.

Pilot Peter Barnes kept the helicopter steady about a foot above the car as paramedic Kevin Hodgson lowered himself down onto its roof. He then pulled the motorist out through the window of the car, which could have been swept away at any second.
Mr Hodgson helped the man into the helicopter, which then had to move away.
The pilot then re-positioned himself above the car so Mr Hodgson could climb back in and the helicopter flew off to safety.

Mr Hodgson, 45, of Bishop Auckland, has worked for the North-East Ambulance Service for seven years, but last night said he had never attempted such a dramatic rescue before. The brave father-of-three said:
"You don't think about the danger when you are doing something like that. It is only afterwards that it hits you that you were in real danger. When we arrived we found the man trapped in his car, which had been swept into the river by strong currents and was in danger of being carried away, and fire crews couldn't reach him.

"Water was flooding the car up to the man's chest and he was trapped inside. The fire service had requested a rescue helicopter from RAF Boulmer, but we decided we had to act now before it was too late.

"The currents were very strong and there was a chance that the car could have been swept away at any time, so getting him out of the car quickly was crucial."

Peter Barnes, 41, has been flying for the North-East Ambulance for eight years and has also worked as a stunt pilot in numerous Hollywood films including the latest James Bond and Tomb Raider movies.
He said: "It wasn't a run of the mill rescue. Some quick decisions had to be made and the timing was crucial, but fortunately everything went like clockwork. I've worked on some action movies in my time, but Kevin is a real hero climbing onto the roof of that car - although what the man was doing trying to go across Stanhope Ford, God only knows."

The driver of the car was last night said to be "cold, wet and shaken, but otherwise OK" and did not need to go to hospital.

Editorial in the same newspaperNow the ford must close

How crazy do you have to be to attempt to ford the River Wear at Stanhope after several days of persistent rain?

If you are that crazy, would it make any difference that two motorists have already had to be plucked from the Wear at the notorious ford this year - or that large signs now proclaim the river a danger "at any time".

Would the danger that any rescuer would have to put themselves at to save you, should your car get stuck, cross your mind?

For that matter, would the estimated £20,000 cost to the taxpayer of scrambling a rescue helicopter and other emergency services when your fun little trip stopped being fun, slow you down at all as you approached the swirling waters?

For some people, the answer to all the above questions still seems to be "No".

The heroes of yesterday were the paramedics Peter Barnes and Kevin Hodgson, who went a long way beyond the call of duty to hover feet above the water and pull the latest self-imposed victim of the river to safety.
Without them we would be reporting a far grimmer story in the pages of The Journal today.

Unless the warnings are heeded there is a real fear that one day soon we will have to report on a death at Stanhope.

The thousands of people in the region who have helped raise money to support the Air Ambulance appeal are entitled to a feeling of pride this morning.

Let us be clear: The ford is not the only way to cross the river below Stanhope. A diversion leads to a bridge less than half a mile away. The fact the ford is still open to traffic at all is largely a matter of tradition and the sometimes useful common law surrounding rights of way.

But to date this year three separate vehicles have come to grief there.

If the good sense of drivers cannot be relied upon, then the ford must close.

Also lots of favourable publicity in the national newspapers which is good for the industry. :ok:

[Vfrpilotpb]

HH

Forgive the question, but you do seem terribly Pissed off at this particular rescue, and in turn it seems you are being less than generous in your comments towards other pilots, now whilst you have many hours as an observer you will of course have some knowlege of airborne situations, but surely that doesnt give you the right to make such black and white judgemental comments as you have.

Have you been at odds with some Pilot somewhere in your employment and if so is this why we are reading your acerbic comments?

Peter R-B

Vfr

[Flying Lawyer]

"Paramedic Mr Hodgson .......... father-of-three."

Pilot Pete Barnes, father-of-one ...... and another one on the way. ;)

[S76Heavy]

Mr Hodgson helped the man into the helicopter, which then had to move away.
The pilot then re-positioned himself above the car so Mr Hodgson could climb back in and the helicopter flew off to safety.
Wy was it done this way, was it because of OEI performance or lack of space in the back?
And congratulations to Pete :D more sleepless nights to look forward to.

[huntnhound]

Well with all these wonderful points of view and given in such a constructive manner I have to say I was wrong.

Ive changed my mind and look forward to first chance to go and do the same sort of job:ok:

[Bravo 99 (AJB)]

Hunt and hound

I have to say having read your points in this thread I would worry if I knew you where a member of my team

When it hits the fan i would like to know that all my team where behind my dicisions 100% and that i knew how far my crew would go. even though you say you have a changed opinion.

I wonder really

Again well done to the lads

Sincerely
Bravo 99

[Heliport]

Bravo 99 (AJB)

Pheweeee! :eek:
That's a whole new dimension.

Have you ever done any SAR, HEMS, or Police work as a pilot?
CRM?????? ;)

[Whirlybird]

Huntnhound,

Please tell me one thing...what do you think they should have done?

[zardoz]

Bravo99 - I would hope that this would be a crew decision, rather than to expect your crew to blindly follow your decision "100%"

HH - with all those hours aren't you for tenure yet? :E

[Unwell_Raptor]

"The Audi owner now faces charges of careless driving"

Really? How would anyone know?

This assertion is about as reliable as the rest of the Mail's output.

[Windle Poons]

Reading this post I've wondered if I could have done what Kevin Hodgson did. I reckon I could and would, but the fact of the matter is that I won't know for sure until the situation presents itself to me, if indeed it does.

What I do know for sure is that before anything like this was attempted, the crew would have discussed other solutions, and if none were suitable or possible, that each person on board would have an equal right to veto the final course of action.

The pilot should not make the decision alone and nor should the observer/paramedic. It is a crew/team decision, and I know that the guys I work with (not sexist they are all guys) would stand by that TEAM decision, no matter which way it went. I refuse to believe that both the people involved here did not discuss their course of action prior to taking it, and I am sure that neither would be reckless as to their own safety. The fact that they were prepared to do what they did to save a life gets my :ok:, and long may it be so.

In the aviation/medical/law enforcement environments we are often damned with near perfect hindsight, but we should never let that affect a decision to save life. The only factors that should be considered are those available at the time. What came first litigation or health and safety. You may call me a cynic, but health and safety is not really about making us safer, it is about reducing costly legal settlements. (Thanks to AB - he'll understand!)

There will always be risk, it cannot be avoided. Our jobs are to assess it and manage it, but please let's not refuse to make decisions because of it, or any likely fallout IF it goes wrong.

For the record I have 1000 hours as an observer and just 9 towards my PPL(H), but my decision to act would not be based on either of those statistics.

Well done to both the guys involved.

WP.

[Hilico]

Come on chaps, credit where credit's due - HH has recanted, after all.

[Flying Lawyer]

U_R

From what I hear from a very reliable source, the Mail has probably got it right.
The police at the scene weren't too impressed by the driver trying to use the ford when the river was obviously flooded and were seen making their views known to him.
Whether anything actually comes of it, time will tell.

[huntnhound]

Well I didn’t intend to contribute again as the verbal bashing(not to mention the outlandish insults) has left me somewhat confused..
However

Whirlybird….I wasn’t there so I don’t know the layout of the land. Landing and deploying a throw rope may have been an option.

Zardoz…. Tenure went out the window a long time ago…and rightly so

Unwell _Raptor The mail, and every other British newspaper, are sensationalists who exist for profit and profit alone. Those of us who read them ( and I do because they are free) do so knowing they are written by brain dead twerps who usually thrive on the misfortune of others…usually they are 100% inaccurate and are therefore discounted as irrelevant.

Windle Poons The first honest and informed post on this thread. Spoken from reasoning rather than comparisons to a previous career. I don’t agree with everything you say..but …in this democratic society I respect your right to say it. Well thought out words are considerably better than off the cuff insults.


Hillico… I now have an open mind


Flying Lawyer…This is the UK ,,,of course he is innocent of all charges unless the CPS have a realistic chance of 80% success

Amen

[Flying Lawyer]

HnH

Fire crews were trying to reach the man, but couldn't.

There's no 80% test. Otherwise, what you say about the CPS is correct.

The Mail praised the crew's actions. Rare treat for the industry - make the most of it.

FL

[Thomas coupling]

These situations are a pilots nightmare (because it is the pilot who makes the final decision), the paramedics will be swayed by his considerations.
Basing my comments on the information given (firemen having trouble getting a rope across? SAR cab too far away); I would approach the situation, thus:

Offer to fly the rope across the river for the firecrew. If successful, our job would be complete. Firecrew could carry out rescue from then on.
If this can't be done:
Accept the job (due to time constraints) after checking ALL the crew wish to participate.
LAND on at a nearby safe sight.
Thoroughly brief participating crew on safety issues including ditching in the river.
COMPULSORY DONNING OF LIFE JACKETS.
Fly over car, skids onto or close to car roof. Lower mae west to driver.
Indicate to driver to don jacket, then clamber out of window and cling to skids.
Fly driver to river bank.

IF driver couldn't / wouldn't comply:
Deplane paramedic onto roof (firmly tied to rear of cabin), help driver out, either help him into back of cab or grab hold of him and fly them both to river bank.

In summary:
It was a solid piece of flying skill.
The paramedic was 'brave' - mind you I have never met a paramedic who wasn't!.

BUT, perhaps some more thought could have been put to :
Everyone wearing maewests.
Driver given maewest without paramedic climbing out.
Driver wading ashore using rope from chopper etc etc.

It is so easy to get stuck in when situations like this present themselves. I'm not saying the crew didn't think outside the box (I wasn't there), but I do know what goes thru ones mind when it happens. AND YOU MUST TRY TO CLOSE DOWN AS MANY OF THE RISKS AS POSSIBLE.
That is all that could be expected of anyone IF something went wrong.

I say to myself, when we do jobs similar to these:
Was I acting (as commander of the a/c) in the best interests of ALL THOSE CONCERNED.

There will never be a precedent for scenarios like these - impossible.

I've said it before:
if you get away with it, you're all heroes. If you don't, you find you have no friends anymore!!!!

[Hedski]

These jobs have a nasty little habit of boiling down to risk assessment. Everybody so far on this thread appears to have the opinion that the appropriate assessment was made and therefore no real problem.
Any SAR or EMS job must surely assess the "what if" when one of the two motors fails, assuming we are under JAR and you have two in the first place. The reason S61's winch from boats running in to wind as much as possible is to give crews a chance of escaping despite the lack of SE performance at low speed of said type. If the 105 can hover over a river on one engine at this a/c's weight fine. But if not.........
We forever talk of "sods law", we accept an element of danger in flying, it will happen in the worst place at the worst time etc. Was the risk absolutely minimised given the apparent situation unfolding.
Can a Bo105 type rated pilot please respond and tell of this types ability for SE hovering within a foot/two of a car.
Was the victim actually in such immediate danger as would prevent a cessation of flying to don Mae Wests etc. as TC's plan suggests? This appears to be an extremely tight space, plenty to go wrong........
Being Devil's advocate merely because several SAR pilots remind me regularly of the day they have to sit above a boat with critically ill person on board and say no because its too much of a risk to winch them aboard. No point losing more lives in trying to save the victim as he can't be saved by a now incapacitated crew.
This mans apparent loonacy has brought two other lives into danger. Do we turn around and say well he's in danger so we must save him at all cost. A successful outcome does not mean it couldn't so easily have become a tragedy should something have gone wrong. It is not indicated in any report I've read that all other means to rescue him were exhausted.
This may however be the case and the photos may confuse the appearance of the scene ie. clear area etc.
I have to ask are we thinking along the lines of American EMS and Police operators where accidents are occuring at an alarming rate, wire strikes, night time incidents etc. The victim is being saved, most of the time but at possible fatal risk to the crew, more than normal flying risks. Five years ago an SAR crew were killed in an incident where they flew in conditions apparently beyond their capabilities and those of the a/c. A timely reminder of what can happen. We strive to do our best, but sometimes we should say no. An unfortunate fact of the job, nature of he beast. Something for a few of the previous posters to think about.
This may not have been one of those times, it may. See what other SAR/EMS crews say, maybe Pete would join the conversation and enlighten us with more detail. I'm keeping an open mind, but hoping to learn from Pete's experience either way.
Regardless well done Pete and Kevin, a pint shall be drunk in honour.....or ten! :ok:

[Rotorbike]

A BO105 won't single engine hover.

[pilotwolf]

As a paramedic and a helo pilot and currently rather the worse for wear due to a rather affulent alcoholic friend! :) ...

Who has posted above wouldn't do the same in the same situation?
Who won't risk their life to say others? I ve done it several times (on and off duty) and would do it again... difficult call but don't know anyone in any of the emergency services who would quit and let someone die.
I ve posted before on a similar subject and would happily lose my licence to save a life... can always 'go public' via the press afterwards... you re unlikey to come off worse than the CAA...

Watch someone die or risk your licence ? YOUR choice...

PW

[Bravo 99 (AJB)]

Sorry boys i worded my bit a little to strong then. what i intended to say then is that, you know your crew and know what dicisions to make knowing your crew, and there views feelings etc etc.

then you make the final dicision from there, H/P no not worked as EMS HEMS ETC speaking from a firemans prospective in this instant only. and yes CRM is a must and if any member of my team decided at any time he wanted out or not to do it then dicisions would assessed based on that and changed if necessary

I would hope in a situation like this though that what the pilot thought and his crew where the same thing, that is to save this guys life and quick.

if your crew has quistions about situations like this, at what point would that crew member voice his view to stop. this is where i was coming from.

Team work is what all games are about but if there is a quistion of dought about any player it makes the ultimate dicision more difficult. and poss adds a risk to the task.

But this is only an ex firemans point of view.

PS im with pilot wolf on this one.

Sincerely
Bravo 99

[volrider]

Bravo 99 (AJB)

I have to say having read your points in this thread I would worry if I knew you where a member of my team

When it hits the fan i would like to know that all my team where behind my dicisions 100% and that i knew how far my crew would go. even though you say you have a changed opinion.

Although you hastily retreated from this initial post I would worry if I was a member of YOUR crew. I have flown with pilots who go down atunnel of "I am right..don't question me" and its not an experience I will allow to happen again!

Flying Lawyer

There's no 80% test

Has it increased even further then?

I agree with TC about planning such a task, it is important to plan plan and discuss so every one is happy with their role and whats to be done. I appluad the actions of the crew who did this rescue. I am sure also that HH does not deserve the flak some of you are giving out. He was not intending to cause disconcern but was just pointing out the what ifs....
With the experience he obviously has 1200 hours he knows his stuff.
HH would no doubt have done the same thing but like TC, would have made sure it was planned and all eventualities were worked out

[huntnhound]

Volrider,

Thank you for your views.

Thomas coupling Thanks for yours.

Its interesting that the abusers havent submitted you to the same torrent of words that I was subjected to.

Abuse is easy... constructive thought requires more intelligence:D

[Bravo 99 (AJB)]

At the end of the day each individual has his/her own opinion
the crew made the right choice,someones life was saved so well done to then.

Just as a final note Isurvived 23 years in the front line of fire Service, only to have my career finished by someone who at the time did not carryout an instruction given to him. becouse he thought better.

but that is a different story.

Signing off on this one

Bravo 99
AJB

[Biffer]

Deepest thanks from all the crew involved for the kind support.

Great thought was applied to the situation which included

a. ANO Rule 5 b,c,e
b. JAR Ops 3.005
c. Risk v need.
d. SAR 25min ETA approx
e. No plan immediately available to the Fire brigade.
f. Ditto for Police.
g. Equipment levels and inadequacy
h. and don't forget the main reason.......a man trapped in a car, up to his middle in freezing water for 30 mins already, no means of immediate escape, rising flash flood level, car unstable with the fear of being swept further down river to the deeper area and car doors and windows (electric) unable to be opened against the flow.

All this considered within a very short space of time.

"Instinctive"

Everyday possibility for HEMS, all be it not too often.

pp Kev, Collin and Peter.
:ok: :ok:

[Whirlygig]

It's great to hear from you and, as we all knew anyway, you made a decision based on the situation at the time; something which none of us can comment on really without being there.

Cheers

Whirlygig

[Heliport]

Biffer

Thanks for passing on the message from the crew. :ok:

We don't see much of you in this forum - hope to see more of you in the future.


Heliport

[volrider]

Yes Biffa good to hear from you and the crew an excellent job that we all hope we could emulate but also hope we never have to:ok: :ok:

[pilotwolf]

OK to throw a different angle on it.... suppose the life saved wasn't human?

Is it still worth the risk? Would you still risk an accident or your licence?

Top story here, (SoCal), is currently about the fire department rescuing a dog stranded in the flood waters of the LA river..

OK so they re trained for winch rescue and not sure what aircraft was used. But following a recent FD incident - mechanical failures occur....

Any thoughts?

PW

[J.A.F.O.]

The air ambulance in the UK is NOT a search and rescue..nor are the Police No, but isn't your first duty to protect life?

In similar circumstances, after weighing up all of the pros and cons, I hope I'd be brave enough to take the right decision; whatever that may be.

Well done to the crew.

PS From what I remember of WYPA the biggest threat to H&S is rattling your fillings loose once you get back on board.

[Coconutty]

Pose a simple thought-provoking question, without passing any criticism ( or praise ) and get shot at :eek: !

A hearty slap on the back for the crew from me too for a job well done. Without knowing all the details of their decision making, they must surely have considered the options before reaching their joint decision - I doubt if they would be in the job for long if they didn't do this on EVERY mission !

A big thumbs up aswell for "HuntingHound" for raising these issues so everyone can comment on them - and for daring to ask the question " What if ... "
Loads of CRM considerations have been posted as a result which can only be good for everyone concerned.

Here's another " What if " question ...

... " What if " a Private helo pilot or someone without the expertise, knowledge and training of the Air Ambo / Police / SAR crews were to happen upon an incident like this TOMORROW ( I've just checked the weather forecast - and this might not be as unlikely as you think ! ) - WHAT WOULD THEY DO ????

Maybe they'd have a go at a rescue without considering all the options and potential consequences, Maybe they will have read this thread and will have learnt a few things - consider some options they might not have thought of before, Maybe they won't.

The only answer is to get Capt. Biffer to fly more missions - I've heard he really can walk on water !


:ok:

[MBJ]

Nice one, Mr Barnes!

[Bronx]

Coconutty

Without passing any criticizm??

Kinda strange for hunterhound to start his thread about a succesful rescue mission with this icon next to it

http://www.pprune.org/forums/images/infopop/icons/icon9.gif = unhappy

if you aint meaning to criticize.

They didn't look like innocent 'neutral' questions to me. He was trying to make some points and for some reason best known to himself he decided the pilot and paramedic hadn't thought of all them questions for themselves before doing the rescue. :rolleyes:

My hat's off to the crew. :ok:

[exhemsdog]

I have read some crap at times but coconutty you take the biscuit, I can only think you are sleeping with huntnhound, or maybe you are a fully law abiding by the book policeman, who we all love to meet when caught doing 5 mph over the limit and have to endure the lecture!!
What a plonker to sumise any PPL would now consider a rescue after reading this thread - you have got to be on another planet, I may watch casualty but I don't try open heart surgery in my spare time. Try firing from the head for a change rather than the hip, you may score a hit. Have you ever thought a PPL may read this and think well done - then work harder to succeed and progress to his CPL etc in the hope of emulating a job well done.

Back to the books...........

[volrider]

exhemsdogI have read some crap at times
Yep and I'm reading yours right now!!!
Why is it that HH and Coconutty are getting slated for bringing this to a discussion? We ALL AGREE that the crew did a superb job and deserve the highest praise, no doubt. What HH and a few others are doing is opening up the scenario for all to view and discuss, no critisism of the crew or their actions nope, just a debate that is healthy and informative. I think we all have learned from this thread and I am sure it will be useful if this situation arises again. Planning is the keypoint that doesnt mean a weeks chat first, just some common sense and good planning for all eventualities. Which these guys did.
CRM seesm to be a big issue here and you mr Ex hems dog must have missed your last course!
Its outbursts like yours that add nothing positive to an interesting debate.:*

[Whirlygig]

A couple of years ago, I started a thread on this forum along the lines of "What the bl**dy hell does this guy think he's doing?" The replies I got were mostly "OK, technically illegal but not dangerous and good fun - hope he gets away with it". However, there were a number of posters (and Whirly has a long memory) who flamed me big time. Like HuntnHound, I backed down and bowed to superior wisdom and experience but still it carried on.....

So, where someone has asked some valid questions (and there are some of us here who would wish to learn from the experiences of others), why can't we have some reasoned answers? TC seemed to be one of the few who grasped the topic and have a good response.

ExHemsDog, I do not know of any PPL who would have a go at that sort of rescue but, in the helo world, I only know three PPLs at most. However, what it does bring to mind is the lovely video of the pilot who stoofed a JetRanger into the sea when he tried to tow a motor boat. So there are some pretty stoopid pilots out there!!
But it is a good point that you make that an episode such as this serves to demonstrate a) what can be done and b) what needs to be done in order to achieve it. It would encourage me to learn more and also, how little I do know.

There was a recent thread called "well-adjusted helicopter pilots" started by SE7EN.

C'mon chaps and chappesses, no more bickering.
In essence, I think we all agree; just have different ways of expressing it!

Cheers

Whirlygig

[Sedbergh]

Having done my share of dodgy crossings of African rivers in Landrovers etc and white water canoeing

a) There was enough water piled up on the upstream side of that car that it must have been close to losing adhesion and heading downstream, possibly upside down.

b) The guy could probably have got out on the downstream side but what then? He could not have waded ashore through 0.5 m of water travelling at that speed

If he had tried,he would have been swept uncontrollably downstream.

c)The flood depth could have increased at any time if the fire brigade etc had been waited-for

All things considered the guy might have been OK without the chopper rescue. But would anyone want to play those odds?

'kin good flying IMHO

[S76Heavy]

Whirlygig,

There are ways of asking genuine questions and there are ways of disguising critisism as questions; this topic started with option #2 and the replies (including mine) were based on that critisism.

There has never been any doubt in any of the contributors' mind as to the need to correctly identify the least risky course of action. However, sometimes one runs out of viable options and has to bite the bullit and decide, based on capability, personal limits, performance and worst case scenarios. And that can be a go or no-go decision, and it will be discussed for months to come.
These guys did, and let us know that indeed they took a calculated risk as most of us suspected (that's what professionalism is all about).

So I don't believe what happened in this thread was unfair and undeserved.

[Thomas coupling]

Pilotwolf:

I'd like to comment on your view that you'd always save life Vs losing your licence. If it was that simple, so too, would every other pilot.
The thing to remember is that you are placing many other innocent people within that deadly arena. IF things go wrong (and they sometimes will/do) and you kill a member of your crew that day (by default, you've probably not been able to complete the rescue, so the victim dies too?). Could you sleep well at night????
It is not black and white, is it? Think about the implications of joining the fracas.

About the issue of saving anything other than people - I would never ever, ever put my crew at risk (or myself) for the sake of an animal or object....totally irresponsible attitude!

Joe (PPL) saving life in his chopper - he probably has more leeway with the CAA than commercial operators!!! Remember the Potomac 737 crash where the jet ranger pilot did the recue off his own back??? I think the issue here would be focused on experience rather than H and S?

We, as emergency services operators are actively DIScouraged from taking part in dramatic rescues, by both the Home Office and the CAA. They know though that it goes on and as long as there isn't an incident, nothing is said.

But mark my words:
The day something goes wrong - they will hang that crew out to dry and make an example of them nationwide.

[Vfrpilotpb]

I have many friends who are PPL(H) as indeed am I, between us we have many hours on many different flying machines, but I feel that I can state catagorically NONE OF US PPL(H) pilots would feel able to get involved in a rescue situation, ...the results could be not good, and after all here in the UK we are pretty well covered with rescue and Police Helis that would be able to get involved without the non professional risk factor, plus the RAF and ARMY and Coastguard are all there for inland backup.

Despite being Private Pilots, we all know what our limits are!

PeterR-B
VFR

[Bravo 99 (AJB)]

Just poping back in from the side TC has a good point.

when i was on duty our list of priorities where as follows.
1) life
2) Property
3) Humane

In that order is how we worked losing a crew member to save a cow in a pit or a dog down a drian or loss a helicopter and crew to save a stranded sheep for arguements sake i dont think so.

Life yes consider the risk and pos take it. i dont think there is an issue. but humane i think we would have to way up the odds, first.

But i have to say the thread has produced some interesting feed back.

Back on the side

B 99

[Heliport]

I suspect that, if huntnhound had started the discussion in a different way, the reaction to his post would have been different.
I suppose it's possible hnh was simply posing a thought-provoking question "without passing any criticism ( or praise )" but it's difficult to reconcile that with the content and tone of his originating post. And, as has already been pointed out, starting a thread about a successful rescue task with an 'unhappy' symbol http://www.pprune.org/forums/images/infopop/icons/icon9.gif suggests a negative view is being expressed.


Threads about successful rescues often have a http://www.pprune.org/forums/images/infopop/icons/icon14.gif attached.

http://www.pprune.org/forums/images/infopop/icons/icon9.gif is more commonly used when pilots and/or others have lost their lives.

The responses might also have been different if the originating post had included at least some passing compliment to the crew - which is what others have done.


NB I'm not complaining - this is a discussion forum from which we can all learn something new every day, regardless of our experience levels. The more thought-provoking discussion the better as far as I'm concerned - and 'provocative' posts are often the most thought-provoking. :)

[huntnhound]

...................."No, but isn't your first duty to protect life?"..........

Yep, not only the person you are trying to save but the three or four in the air also:ooh:

[Coconutty]

Healthy discussion is exactly right and is exactly what's needed - which is what HunterHound started here. I posed another " What if ... " question to provoke even more " Healthy " discussion but now find that I am looking at borrowing a bullet proof vest from one of the Police air units, and maybe asking the Air Ambo crews for some anti-venom serum, just for voicing my support of HH AND the crew !

exhemsdog :

I have read some crap at times but coconutty you take the biscuit, I can only think you are sleeping with huntnhound, or maybe you are a fully law abiding by the book policeman, who we all love to meet when caught doing 5 mph over the limit and have to endure the lecture!!

Sorry to disappoint but No - I'm none of those, although I am partial to the occasional macaroon with my tea :rolleyes:
Your comments aren't exactly constructive are they ?
Maybe you get off on winding people up,
Maybe you're just a complete doombrain,
Maybe the word "maybe" is pure conjecture used to provoke further comment ( or maybe it's not )...
I asked the question "What would they do" ( PPL's coming across such an incident ) and posed a few suggestions - I did NOT "summise" anything as YOU seem to have done.
How is it that you can make assumptions on behalf of all PPL's that they would NOT consider a rescue after reading this thread ?? - Surely as a mere Human Being this is exactly what they would and should do, and should then reach the correct decision ( whatever it may be ) based on all the circumstances known to them at the time ???
I will make an assumption about you however, and that is that you seem to be quite at ease with flaunting regulations -
when caught doing 5 mph over the limit
- If this were on a road with a 40 mph speed limit it would equate to 12.5% over the limit - I wonder if you would you be so reticent about flaunting other regulations by the same amount, like MTOW's or Duty Hours, or maybe just going a "little bit" into the restricted air space that you're not cleared to enter etc. etc. etc ???

Rules and regulations are there for a reason - you don't seem to have grasped this - but I bet you'd be the first to complain if your nearest and dearest were maimed by a motorist that could not stop in time because they were going 5mph over the limit - like that child in the UK safety TV advert. The overall stopping distance at 45 MPH ( according to the D.O.T. ) compared to 40 MPH is an extra 37.5 feet - nearly 3 car lengths !

But back to the main topic , which was : raising some serious considerations in an unusual rescue situation like this - I stand by my support of HH for starting the thread without criticism or praise - I do accept BRONX's comment about the "unhappy" face which does cast a certain ambience over the topic at the outset - but there was no actual criticism from HH at the start and he didn't deserve the slating he got just for sticking his neck above the turret.
Of course I also stand by my praise of the crew for an excellent job.

Consider this : if no-one questions, if no-one asks, if no-one criticises, if no-one enquires, then what's the point of it all ?
We may as well get rid of the CAA the FAA the ANO, not to mention the Road Traffic Act, and all do our own thing, and while we'll never again pick up a few penalty points on our driving licences, or have to fork out a few quid in speeding fines, we will of course be totally safe in our metal boxes undertaking at 120 in the "slow" lane, never mind what the likes of exhemsdog will be up to in the air :uhoh:

[pilotwolf]

TC..fair point but I was being simplistic assuming all went OK and the only danger was from the CAA.

PW

[Thomas coupling]

Coconutty: you'll have to excuse exhemsdog: probably a resident commentator on justhelicopters.com, the red light district for helo forums.

Your comments were constructive and thought provoking.

[Coconutty]

Cheers TC - I have no doubt that others have reached their own conclusions, and that we won't hear much more from "him" :8

[Banjo]

Whirlygig,

any idea where i can see the video of the jetbox towing the boat crash??.. must be funny and the guys would love to see it.

[Whirlygig]

Banjo,

No probs!

Previous thread discussing it (http://www.pprune.org/forums/showthread.php?s=&threadid=111378&highlight=jetranger+AND+video)

The link here didn't work when I tried it just now so try this - it's called HeloTowJob.

http://www.agschools.com/humor.htm

Cheers

Whirlygig

[StevieTerrier]

Banjo said

" Whirlygig,
any idea where i can see the video of the jetbox towing the boat crash??.. must be funny and the guys would love to see it."

Funny? Oh yeah, it's hilarious. Would you also like a link to the Sea King that crashed on the deck of the ship and burst into flames? Or the AS350 Newscopter that crashed on the roof of building?

Funny? are you sure you're in the right forum? Or business come to that?

Anyway...back to the Rescue.

I was just reviewing my First Aid procedures yesterday (Ok that may seem a bit sad ..) and one Page 1 it said something like...

" The rescuer should never put themselves in a position where their own safety is compromised".

Or put mathematically : One stupid motorist does not equal ((1 x helicopter + (1 x paramedic + 1 x pilot))

Discuss.

[SilsoeSid]

On the subject of videos of this nature, (A reality check maybe to highlight that you'll perhaps not always get away lightly)

There is also the video of the Taiwan Dauphin taking part in a simulated SAR rescue over a river for a publicity event.

http://www.taiwanheadlines.gov.tw/20000907/20000907s21.jpg Taiwan press link (http://www.taiwanheadlines.gov.tw/20000907/20000907s2.html)
Unfortunately, despite being a dedicated rescue aircraft with trained crew and with little pressure apart from the publicity, it all went horribly wrong.

What's even more amazing about it, is that the winchman is deployed at the time and survives!

If no-one beats me to it I'll host and post a link to the vid shortly.

[volrider]

Mr Terrier Funny? Oh yeah, it's hilarious. Would you also like a link to the Sea King that crashed on the deck of the ship and burst into flames? Or the AS350 Newscopter that crashed on the roof of building?
Actually it is funny..if you cared to watch it you would see this; it bears no resemblence to the other crashes you mentioned, I have seen all of them and yes your stomach turns over, but this one is just plain stupid behaviour by the pilot. You then have a moan about the duty crew on the air ambo by stating you read your first aid book and true it dooes say that..however I can guess these chaps did all the right things in the right order and it worked.
So whats up Terrier man your team lose today? you wanna watch mine mate if you really want depression:sad:

[Bertie Thruster]

Why do Hems crewmembers have to wear helmets when flying under exemptions to the ANO?

[Flying Lawyer]

Coconutty

I understand your point about the assumption exhemsguy made about PPLs. Probably not a safe assumption.
What a pity you then went on to make some some extraordinary assumptions yourself about the type of people who'd exceed a speed limit by 5 mph.
Probably includes 99% of the population (certainly includes me)provided the road and prevailing conditions make it safe to do so.

But, as you said, "back to the main topic." ;)

[SilsoeSid]

FL,

I think the point Coconutty is trying to make is that to exceed the speed limit is 'illegal' as is 'exceeding MTOW's, Duty Hours, or going a "little bit" into the restricted air space.'

If we break the law, should we not be taken to one side and explained the dangers? Should the 40mph speed signs be renamed to say, "40mph or 45mph if you feel like it!"

I'm sure that if one was to exceed for example the restriction around Sizewell (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/3751869.stm) by the 12.5% this would mean it to be OK to actually fly within 1.75 miles of the establishment.

Surely that would get a word in the shell like at best, failing that a Tornado interception!

SS

[Coconutty]

Flying Lawyer,

What a pity you then went on to make some some extraordinary assumptions yourself about the type of people who'd exceed a speed limit by 5 mph.

- My assumptions were only about EXhemsdog, NOT everyone / the type of people... blah blah..... and I wondered if he ( EXhemsdog ) would " be so reticent about flaunting other regulations by the same amount "

The point remains that even if 100% of the public exceed the speed limit - it is still against the law and can have disastrous consequences.
I'm sure you are an extremely experienced driver, maybe even of Institute of Advanced motorist quality, and can judge when it might be safe to exceed the speed limit, but it still don't make it right !

The main topic - what was it again ??? Oh yeah - something about rules and regs being there to keep us all safe wasn't it ?? :ok:

[Ginger Spinner]

Oh dear, oh dear, by some twist of the ether I seem to have found myself on pplod.org
For it is surely the case that the analy retentive, manual reading, 5mph =37.5' brigade can not be pro pilots, as this web site says on the wrapper.

Let's get this straight, the rescue went well, good job lads. If it had turned messy, then maybe we could have this ridiculous debate.

I'm sure some clever test pilot type has got some probability figures for engine / tail rotor failures. I seem to remember an offshore study was in the millions to one region. So in this splendid risk assessment era here's an idea, lets just not get airborne.

I'm off to buy some cotton wool and if ever I forget to wrap myself up in it I hope it's Pete and his crew who find me and not some of you lot....unbelievable!

[Whirlygig]

Ouch Stevie,

Just providing a service! No lives were lost, but I bet pride was hurt and insurance premiums increased. It WAS funny; just like the Darwin Awards are funny and people do lose their lives there.

It's like the 2-hour student in a S300 - his stupidity and wipes out his own aircraft but walks away (actually I think he crawls in shame).

I agree that clips where lives are lost are not for salacious viewing but (and I have seen all the ones you've mentioned) if anyone can learn anything from them, then they should be shown. The reason that I posted the link to the original thread is that the crash is discussed - how and why it happened. Again we can all learn from it.

Cheers

Whirlygig

[SilsoeSid]

Ginger Spinner,
I'm sure some clever test pilot type has got some probability figures for engine / tail rotor failures. I seem to remember an offshore study was in the millions to one region.
I refer you to my previous post.


SS


On a light hearted note,
ginges previous 5 posts are ;

1. "For christ's sake now we're discussing fashion, waistlines and teenage inuendo. Why not get Trinny and Susanah on!"

2. "Please enough of the sexism debate."

3. "Sad" I'd say bloody spooky!

4. "Any chance of starting a Test Pilot / thinks he's a Test Pilot page."

5. "I guess the simplest arguement against wearing the flight suit vs the white shirt in a VIP enviroment, would be that you would scare the daylights out of your pax. "

Heres one for you ginge, any chance of a decent constructive post? :=

[Flying Lawyer]

Sid
I understood the point. I've read it a few times in discussions about speed cameras in the Jetblast forum. Drivel, in my view.
I don't actually know anyone who, regardless of conditions, never breaks a speed limit. They wouldn't be my sort of my people. :D
I'm concerned about going off topic so, very briefly:
If we break the law ........... explained the dangers?
In this context, only if genuinely a danger.
Should the 40mph speed signs be renamed ...... ?"
No. But no action for 45mph if safe.

[SilsoeSid]

Without this side of discussion, where would the thread go ?

Anyway, this isn't about cars breaking the speed limits, it is about safety as a whole.
Who determines what is a safe condition?

The driver?
The Traffic officer?
The child about to run across the road?
The horse about to bolt across the country junction?
The person who swept up the diesel spill on your 'safe' part of road?


The point is that these are all analagies relating to what potentially could go wrong at any given time during a 'procedure' which 'bends' the rules.

Driver - Pilot/crew
Traffic officer - CAA
Child - confused unpredictable casualty.
Horse - Startled wildlife (swan/goose perhaps)
Diesel spiller - maintainence engineer.



Q. Is it safe to fly inside the 2 mile limit of Sizewell?
A. Yes.

Q. Is it legal?
A. No.

Go on then, I dare you, try it!!

It is the risk you are prepared to take at the time, one I'm sure, (going back to the reason for this thread), we will take into account during the assessment stage of the incident handling.

Regards,

SS

[Helinut]

Bertie T,

To pick up your comment about helmets, I don't believe that there is (in the UK anyway) a specific legal requirement (i.e a regulation) to make paramedics wear helmets in HEMS. However, the sort of flying done by HEMS exposes them to a level of risk from crashes. Helmets do reduce the consequences. So a "duty of care" approach pushes you down the road (and quite right too). It is a stronger pressure because their use is pretty much universal in HEMS flying.

I think TC's views about the likely outcome if such an operation went wrong are probably about right. However, I do think such an approach (by the regulator) would be wrong. The test should be "Was the decision made prior to the rescue a good or sensible one (taking account of everything that the pilot knew at the time)?". If it was, then IMHO it would be unreasonable to prosecute the pilot, even if the dice fell badly. There is too much use of the hindsightoscope in this and many other parts of life. If you take this to its logical conclusion, you could get rid of all the regulations and just prosecute every pilot in an accident, just because he was involved.

[SilsoeSid]

As it is still a bit foggy out there nothing better to do but sort out some paperwork. While sorting out what to put in the next Unit Flight Safety newsletter, I found something that may be of interest to those who would like to side with Ginger Spinner and his improbability factors.

Quote: "I'm sure some clever test pilot type has got some probability figures for engine / tail rotor failures. I seem to remember an offshore study was in the millions to one region. " Unquote.

SRG Occurences September 2004
Rotary Wing

B206 G-BXAY Engine malfunction. 2 Sept
BO105 G-NAAA Engine malfunction 05 Aug
BO105 G- ZZ Engine malfunction declared 01 Sept
EC135 G-SPHU Engine malfunction 02 Sept
EC135 G-SASB Engine malfunction 07 Sept
EC135 G-SSXX Engine malfunction 14 Sept
SA350 ***** Engine malfunction Aug 04
SA355 G-DOOZ Engine malfunction 12 Aug 04
SA355 G-CAMB Engine malfunction 24 Apr 04
S76 G-CHCD Engine malfunction 09 Sept 04
S76 G-SSSE Engine malfunction 29 Aug 04
S76 G-SSSE Engine malfunction 30 Aug 04

Not to mention other events such as control loss, jammed controls, landing gear problems(BO105), Hyd problems, transmission problems, structure failure, loading problems, battery overheating, other electrical probs, and last but not least collision with objects.

Either September was a particularly bad month for rotary events or good old ginge had better find himself a lot more cotton wool to wrap himself up in as cushioning for WHEN it happens.

Difference between a helicopter pilot and a fixed wing pilot?

A helicopter pilot knows that if nothing is going wrong, it's just about to!

Fly Safe,

SS

[MD900 Explorer]

Without the fear of getting shot down in preverbial flames, but havent we strayed a little from the original thread :confused:

But if i was the helo pilot and i knew i had a window of opportunity, to perform and retrieive I Would

Capt Pete Barnes did a great job and he saved lives that day and looked great, and i don't know why the thread starter made such a great song and a dance, but should stop fishing in a Professional Helicopter Forum even if he has a said 1200 hours watching or or observing. :{ He has certainly made the helo world unite in solidarity against the newsworld. :uhoh:

Flying Lawyer

Some great comments and i am right behind you

Biffer

Solid flying lad and i am glad you and your paramedic made the daring attempt to save lives, because it is what you do every day. Good skills team and great flying. I have had many beers for you already. Shame there is not many more Helo pilots out there willing to stick their neck out :ok:

MD :E

[SilsoeSid]

Shame there is not many more Helo pilots out there willing to stick their neck out.
I'm sure we all would after weighing up the risks.
But I think the point for the pilot is not to accept that the crew would just blindly agree it is the best option. CRM and all that!

Which way round would be best?

On arrival at scene;

Saying to yourself and crew, " We ARE NOT going to do it". And then talk yourselves into doing it.

Or;

Saying to yourself and crew, " We ARE going to do it". And then talk yourselves into not doing it.

SS

[Bertie Thruster]

Helinut: Helmets (that "provide substantial head protection") are a CAA requirement for UK hems crews when using exemption from ANO at a "hems operating site".

As you say there can be an increased level of risk at such sites (ie if an engine stops: you crash!) and from the CAA requirement this event appears to be expected occasionally! (otherwise why mandate helmets?!)

As an observation: such hems sites are often used when only one casualty is expected, so its not just in events like the one under discussion in this thread where the helo, pilot, and medical crew are all at increased risk for just one individual.

[S76Heavy]

On arrival at scene, I would start with assessing the situation. Get the feedback from the other crewmembers first before the commander gives his opinion, so you don't inadvertently push them towards your opinion. Human factors etc.

Then begin a discussion about pros and cons for every possible (foreseeable) action, pick the one with minimum risk and the desired outcome. Discuss all the actions and expectations (after all, this is beyond SOP) and give yourself escape routes. If all on board agree, go for it. If one disagrees, see if you can come up with an alternative action.

It is my belief that an unhappy crewmember is such a liability that to go ahead regardless is reckless. We all have our personal limits and they may change from day to day depending on how we feel physically and mentally. Respect them.
So for me, it takes all the Ayes to go, only one No to abort.

Bertie, I think the argument used by the CAA is that for a small investment one increases safety quite drastically in the unlikely event of; mandating helmets does not mean they expect a crash every now and again but why not take all precautions you can?

Also, as HEMS often operate low level, it offers increased protection in case of bird strikes.

[[email protected]]

So then, what this thread highlights is that an EMS/HEMS crew is capable of carrying out a rescue for which they do not train and do not have the correct equipment - good on them they did extremely well in difficult conditions. However, 2 points:

1. If it had gone wrong I fully believe they would have been villified by the press and the CAA.

2. Why were they put in this situation? Who was the first port of call when the 999 call came in? It should, in this case, have been the SAR flight at Boulmer. Why did it go to ambulance control and then to the Air Ambulance? because they need a certain number of callouts to justify their existence and ambulance controls will generally start at the top of their list and work downwards. And also because people don't understand the difference between SAR and HEMS and their capabilities. We frequently fly NHS paramedics to highlight our capabilities and it has saved lives when a land ambulance is first on scene and recommends tha SAR aircraft over the Air Ambulance because it is clearly a winching job.

Peter and the chaps did an excellent job but the poor callout protocol could have cost the driver his life if the Air Ambulance crew had not been skilled enough to save him.

[Ginger Spinner]

On a light hearted note, - Exactly!
ginges previous 5 posts are ; - Mr Spinner to you.

1. "For christ's sake now we're discussing fashion, waistlines and teenage inuendo. Why not get Trinny and Susanah on!"
a) Thought you'd approve of this one, it's trying to get details of the incident not clothing tips which the thread has descended into.

2. "Please enough of the sexism debate."
a) See above.

3. "Sad" I'd say bloody spooky!
a) I stand by this, have you seen the web site concerned? I'd be investing in security if I were MM-S!

4. "Any chance of starting a Test Pilot / thinks he's a Test Pilot page."
a) OK OK you got me on that one.

5. "I guess the simplest arguement against wearing the flight suit vs the white shirt in a VIP enviroment, would be that you would scare the daylights out of your pax.
a) Get your quotes right, I didn't say this.

Quote "Heres one for you ginge (I've told you, it's Mr Spinner), any chance of a decent constructive post? "
Here's one for you Silsoe Plod, any chance of getting your head out of the books and getting a life / sense of humour?

Quote "Either September was a particularly bad month for rotary events or good old ginge (How many times?) had better find himself a lot more cotton wool to wrap himself up in as cushioning for WHEN it happens."

Thanks for the fascinating list of "engine malfunctions" (of which I've had my fair share thanks!) wonder how many seriously threatened the safety of the aircraft? Still it's probability we were talking about wasn't it. So, how many hours were flown by how many types against problems encountered that would have brought the machine down? I'd guess we may be looking at lottery figures here.

I'm well trained so hope I cope with most things the machine can (and has) throw(n) at me, I just don't live in fear of it happening every time I stick my a*** in it.

Anyway it's a state of mind thing, I guess my cup's half full and yours is half empty.

Nothing's changed I still hope Pete finds me not you.

Damn, told myself not to bite, but some people!

[volrider]

Hey Ginge I reckon thats a big bite..need a big landing net for that little outburst:O :O

Flying Lawyer (did I spell that right;) )
Just like most lawyers you are prepared to break the law..even if its only a teeny weeny bit... as long as your the one doing it.....Hmmm

MD900 EXPLORER you are missing the point completley HH was bringing a what if.. not callinf for a slating match...I have found that all the replies agree that they would do the same if the situation called for it. I am sure HH would also do this. Read back a few posts and you will see what I mean..

[StevieTerrier]

Volrider - nah, yesterday was one of those rare days when the Mighty Terriers didnt actually lose! Mindst you,they did draw after being in the lead, so it felt a bit like a loss..


I wasn't intending to have a pop at the air ambulance crew - once they were committed to doing it I think that for an unplanned, spur of the moment rescue for which they were neither trained or equipped they did a great job. However I think it needed to be pointed out that the first rule of being a Rescuer is never, ever to put yourself in danger of joining the victims. Because if you do, who rescues the rescuer?

[volrider]

A draw..I dream of my lot getting a draw:)
I agree the first thing you do before attempting to rescue anyone is asses the situation and make sure your safe otherwise some other poor sod has to rescue you! :D

[MD900 Explorer]

Volrider

I see what you mean, and i guess i am not trying to slate, anyone, just chose the wrong English to write. :{

SiloesSid

Definately a CRM nightmare, i agree, but also coming down to the point where one is trying to perfom a task that you havnt been trained for in the current role, but you know you can do it anyway. Sounds like the devil and the angel scenario on the shoulders. Difficult i guess to try and talk yourself out of it when you have a small crowd watching and the adrenaline is pumping, and a man may die, but the repercussions if messed up would be 10x worse, and the whole world would descend on you. I think it would be a case of trying to talk yourself out of it. :suspect:

MD :uhoh:

[huntnhound]

2. Why were they put in this situation? Who was the first port of call when the 999 call came in? It should, in this case, have been the SAR flight at Boulmer. Why did it go to ambulance control and then to the Air Ambulance? because they need a certain number of callouts to justify their existence and ambulance controls will generally start at the top of their list and work downwards. And also because people don't understand the difference between SAR and HEMS and their capabilities. We frequently fly NHS paramedics to highlight our capabilities and it has saved lives when a land ambulance is first on scene and recommends tha SAR aircraft over the Air Ambulance because it is clearly a winching job.

Maybe this is the real answer to my original questions.

Is it right, in the 21st Century, that this sort of job is carried by a unit that is funded by charitable donation?

[Flying Lawyer]

volrider

I've looked again at my posts to see if I said anything which could possibly be interpreted, by someone of average intelligence or above, as referring only to myself.
I didn't.

Enjoy your prejudices.

[volrider]

I don't class myself as particularly intelligent, however I do try and abide by the law, you know the one that you gainfully get employment and no doubt an excellent remuneration ;)
Hey but what would I know:ok:

[[email protected]]

Huntnhound - the 21st century has seen massive growth in Air Ambulance activity in the UK and for very good reasons - many counties have areas that are almost inaccessible to land ambulances and many people are injured away from roads. The speed that a helo can recover a casualty to hospital is a major factor in surviving multiple injuries from RTAs etc so the need for AAs is undeniable.
From a UK mil SAR perspective, we have seen many jobs, that might well have gone to us in the past, taken by AAs and again I don't have a problem with that.
What is not good is that many ambulance controls assume that a job requires an AA as a matter of course and often the AA has to turn up on scene to realise that it is a winching job and then call on the SAR helo, wasting a lot of precious time in the process.
Maybe if all emergency services had combined ops/call out centres then assets appropriate to the job might be allocated in the first place but maybe not.

[SilsoeSid]

Mr Spinner,
Sorry quote 5 should have read;

quote; "Lets look at the risk analysis then.
I forget the precise figures but a five layer pro racing suit with full underwear, balaclava, gloves and helmet gives the wearer about 60 secs to scarper." unquote.

Another one of your sweeping assumptions on safety where you can't quite remember the true statistics.

You asked how many of those engine malfunctions actually "seriously threatened the safety of the aircraft". I think you have seriously missed the point of a lot of the posts on this thread.

As for your wish that Pete finds you before me, (I take it you mean in a scenario similar to Petes the other day ;) ),
wouldn't it be so nice to be able to have the choice when it happens!

"Oh No it's you, put me back in the river."
"Rescuees are to inform the rescuing pilot of their pprune username", as you just never know, do you :ok:

Perhaps next time Pete will decide it is too risky to attempt a rescue.

Finally, your constructive post;
"Here's one for you Silsoe Plod, any chance of getting your head out of the books and getting a life / sense of humour?"

1. I am not a plod.
2. When one is on a 12 hr duty and the airfield is fogged in, isn't that an ideal time to get your head in the books!

Mr Spinner, with due respect, are you actually in the business yourself?

[SilsoeSid]

I think we are all agreed that we would like to be able to say that we would do as Pete and Kevin (was there a 3rd crewmember?) did on the 26th.

(Of course I will raise a glass to them as I'm now off duty.)

We would all strive to hopefully save a life in an emergency and it is this very scenario that has been previously discussed in the 'crewroom environment'.
As are the 'burning block of flats and bird strike which takes out the single pilot' scenarios. (further discussion?)

Back to huntinghounds opening post ;

"1. Where is the life jacket?
2. Where are the ropes?
3. Do the paramedics train for jumping onto car roofs out of helicopters?
4. What happens in the event of an engine failure?"

IMHO;

1. Probably back in the storage area. Should we start to carry them as standard? They only weigh 2lbs each.
2. In the survival bag in the rear cabin. Would they actually help?
3. I doubt it in the UK.
4. THIS !!!!! (http://www.geocities.com/pprunessilsoesid/dauphincrash.zip) (584Kb sorry for the quality, this was my first attempt from vid to laptop .):ugh:

[MD900 Explorer]

SiloeSid
Sorry, got all abit confuesd there, but shouldn't that be on the LTE thread? :uhoh:

But i agree with the rest of your comments!! :{

Maybe it was your way of saying, this is what could happen, but unfortunately, i have no video clips of an EO or a TRF so they are a few starters to go with your provocative vid. :sad:

Not having a go, but how far do you want to take this?? :confused:

MD :uhoh:

[Whirlygig]

Way, way back on page 1, the question was posed "what if..... engine failed, tail rotor failed.... during an overwater rescue.

SilsoeSid replied (somewhere in the middle of the thread - 'cos I am starting to lose the thread here as well), saying he would later host a link to a video clip showing what could happen. The news report was put here earlier.

Cheers

Whirlygig

[ShyTorque]

With regard to the risk factors involved due to the aircraft only having:

a) One tail rotor.

b) Two engines but no single engine hover performance.

Perhaps some here think these same risks would not have been present if a SAR aircraft had been awaited?

It should be remembered that our present SAR aircraft have exactly these same limitations and a mechanical failure of either an engine or tail rotor during the rescue would have similar, unfortunate results. Ask the crews of the recently (and deservedly) celebrated rescues at Boscastle what would have been the outcome if a tail rotor or engine failure had occurred...

Consider the situation had Pete B and his crew arrived on scene but had decided NOT to attempt this rescue, although they knew they could, because of perceived risks. If instead a SAR aircraft been awaited and in the meantime the car plus occupant had been washed away with tragic results - what would the press, the general public and the Coroner have said then? We would almost certainly have been discussing that situation here, too.

How many could then have put their hand on their heart and said "Shame, quite right not to attempt a rescue, too risky, only one tail rotor and no single engine hover capability, couldn't be helped, tut, tut?" :rolleyes:

[freeride]

Exactly, the Sea King is more often than not committed in the hover with no single engine options. I would rather have a Bolkow crash on me than a Sea King!

[SilsoeSid]

I totally agree with and accept the above comments.

Hasn't this thread gone on to the fact that SAR crews are equipped and trained for these kind of rescues?
I know it was 45 mins away.

Malfunctions, mishaps, CAA regs aside, what about life jacket wearing for the crew and underwater escape training, in the unlikely event of ditching.
Thankfully nothing untoward happened at Boscastle, (apart from the obvious :hmm: ), but I'd like to think the crew would be able to escape from the aircraft and then be able to float above the surface and be located due to the equipment and training they have.

I'm not saying that I would never attempt such a thing, but look at it this way;

Would you put your life, your crews life, leave your family with no father/mother, husband/wife, leave them at risk from law suit from the standerby who was hit by the wreckage or traumatised by watching the incident or even risk your own permanent disability for the sake of someone later found to be ......................:suspect:


Would we risk all for someone else?
Of course we would if we thought it was the correct descision at the time.

Where is this thread going?..........who knows.........:):confused:

freeride;
Agreed:ugh: but wouldn't you rather see a Sea King come to rescue you ?


I'm so glad this subject is being discussed here and not restricted to crewrooms across the country. the joys of PPRuNe.

[ShyTorque]

Sid,

I would be quite surprised if a water landing in the Boscastle flood would have resulted in a "normal" type of ditching situation, due to the horrendous current.

The video of the Taiwanese Dauphin that you linked to was a very different situation to the Air Ambulance one. That was a pre-planned press demonstration of a SAR aircraft, staged after criticism of the local emergency services during a previous natural disaster (a typhoon, if I remember correctly). The whole thing was a bit of a shambles to say the least, especially as some of the crew appeared not to be wearing helmets or lifejackets. The aircraft hit the water upright under some control and should have stayed down. If it had and floats had been fitted / used a controlled evacuation could have taken place. As it was, the attempt to lift off (now without a fenestron) exascerbated the incident and the copilot sadly lost his life.

This air ambulance incident has highlighted the fact that there is still room for further improvement in the capacity of our airborne emergency services. However, I don't think that critcism of this crew is justified. They did a good job without incident.

[SilsoeSid]

ShyT;

Who mentioned a 'normal' ditching?
I do not believe anyone is critising the crew.
The video of the Taiwanese Dauphin that you linked to was a very different situation to the Air Ambulance one. That was a pre-planned press demonstration of a SAR aircraft, staged after criticism of the local emergency services during a previous natural disaster (a typhoon, if I remember correctly).
Agreed, but also remember the Taiwanese crew didn't actually have the added pressure of a life to save!
I wouldn't say it was a 'very different' situation in the way you mean.
The whole thing was a bit of a shambles to say the least, especially as some of the crew appeared not to be wearing helmets or lifejackets.
I dont believe lifejackets were worn on the 26th were they?


The aircraft hit the water upright under some control and should have stayed down.
Should have! But didn't!
Who is to say that the pilot should have resigned himself to ditching? Perhaps he thought initially he had just dipped the wheels/underbelly in the water.
Could he not have been cushioning the descent and over did it and in doing so cause the a/c to come back out of the water?

If it had (stayed down. ss.) and floats had been fitted / used a controlled evacuation could have taken place.
Floats fitted, I don't believe they were fitted either on the 26th were they?
Controlled evacuation!!!! after spinning around like that on its side! (are we watching the same vid?)


We learn by others, and our own, mistakes;

We also learn by others successes :ok:

I think this is where this thread is going.

I don't think that critcism of this crew is justified.
Who is doing this?:confused:
I see a lot of issues being raised, but I don't see anyone saying they shouldn't have done it!

[ShyTorque]

Sid, I think we must be talking at crossed purposes here.

You wrote:

"Would you put your life, your crews life, leave your family with no father/mother, husband/wife, leave them at risk from law suit from the standerby who was hit by the wreckage or traumatised by watching the incident or even risk your own permanent disability for the sake of someone later found to be ........"

Isn't that meant as a criticism of the crew?

Wasn't the original post also a criticism of the crew's decision to carry out the rescue?

My comment about the Dauphin accident situation being different was because that particular over-water exercise was pre-planned and of course it WAS just an exercise, albeit a very high profile one. Lifejackets and helmets SHOULD have been obligatory, especially in the circumstances leading up to the requirement to hold the exercise, namely, the emergency services attempting to show how professional they were, following previous criticism....

And of course, it was a SAR aircraft, not an air ambulance.

Conversely, the UK air ambulance crew would not have been expecting this type of over-water situation to arise as it isn't in their remit so it isn't at all surprising that jackets weren't worn or immediately available in the aircraft.

From the change in the coning angle of the Dauphin's main rotor blades after the contact with the water, it certainly appears that the pilot attempted to lift off again rather than just cushion the touchdown.

[SilsoeSid]

ShyT,

Sorry if it sounded a bit of a cross purpose, but by no means is it meant to be a critisism.

Perhaps I should have finished the paragraph more clearly.
'or even risk your own permanent disability for the sake of someone later found to be ........'

For fear of opening Pandoras box I cannot put an ending. After all, in war you treat casualties the same no matter which side they fight for doesn't one ! ;) (press here (http://www.geocities.com/Hollywood/Academy/2229/doh.wav) )http://www.geocities.com/Hollywood/Academy/2229/ihomer.gif

The point of the video, was that even though it was a pre-planned exercise and everyone knew roughly what to do, things can and do go wrong. It merely highlights the potential dangers that on any given day we could face and have very little time to make a descision.

The fact it was an SAR a/c highlights that even the properly equipped a/c will fall into problems, let alone one that is not.

Ref the coning angle, I'm agreeing with you once more, but as I said earlier 'Perhaps he thought initially he had just dipped the wheels/underbelly in the water.'


As long as when confronted with this sort of a situation, we don't just go into a rescue mode immediately, risking all, then this thread has had a purpose.
Unfortunately, I think most of us haven't the fortune of a 'crewroom type forum', so to be able to discuss it here and hear a lot of different, IMHO, valid points is nothing but a good thing.

SS

[MD900 Explorer]

Whirlygig

Thanks for pointing that out, because i seem to have lost the thread completely, but hey, i am just a dum blonde. :ok:

SS

Sorry, i missed your video point, but a valid one as usual. Thanks for pointing that out. Maybe i should just shut up :{

MD :uhoh:

[ShyTorque]

Sid,

"The fact it was an SAR a/c highlights that even the properly equipped a/c will fall into problems, let alone one that is not."

Yes, and it is worth bearing in mind that in some major respects this particular SAR aircraft was no better equipped than the UK air ambulance Bolkow!

Namely:

No floats fitted to the aircraft.
No lifejackets worn either by the winch man / diver or the winch operator / crewman inside.
No helmets ditto - the winchman was extremely lucky not to get severely injured as he jumped from the spinning aircraft and then had it fall almost directly on him in the water.
No single engine hover capability.
One tail rotor (failed).

The perception that a SAR aircraft is the perfect answer is not always as true as it might seem to the public. I say that having flown SAR myself (I was working as such not a million miles from the scene of that Dauphin's sorry demise at the time).

[SilsoeSid]

Fair enough, but even more away from the points trying to be made IMHO.

They didn't expect it, it was a worse case scenario, it happened. Sorry, I don't have a video of a 'properly equipped' SAR cab going in. :hmm:

However, wouldn't you rather have an aircraft with it's trained, current and 'experienced in SAR' crew come to rescue you, than whichever helicopter happens to be there at the time?

There must be a reason why there are SAR units around the country, otherwise it would be a simple matter of just phoning up the nearest helicopter unit/operator.

Obviously in this case, ie the 26th, time wasn't on side. (or was it?)

[ShyTorque]

Sid, Ideally as soon as I got into trouble, (although I am not in the habit of trying to drive through rivers in spate), I would prefer a modern, fully equipped SAR aircraft (capable of single engined hover of course), containing a fully trained and competent crew to appear over the horizon. They would make a full and proper recce of the scene, come to the perfect judgement on how to rescue me, carry out a final safety brief ("in the case of an engine failure we will continue with the rescue") and make a flawless pickup without my feet getting wet. I would then be whisked away to a modern, clean NHS hospital to be mollycoddled by a team of beautiful nurses who would insist on rubbing me down with a copy of the Sporting Times, despite my mild embarrassment. I would mutually fall in love with the most beautiful one and we would be happily married and produce scores of beautiful, well behaved children and live happily ever after.......

Unless SAR wasn't going to make it to me in time and I was going to drown, in which case I would probably yell my ar$e off and grab at any passing straw or even accept a ride on the skid of a Robbo R-22 flown by a PPL lost on his first solo outside the circuit. ;)

[Ginger Spinner]

Oooo SS you're hard work!

Now as I seem to have so spectacularly (wound you up!) missed the point, perhaps you'd enlighten me as to how your list of mechanical defects is relevant? My premise was, it's utterly meaningless in this debate unless one compares engine total loss / TR failure to the total hours flown. The aircraft downed risk element!
(Apologies for the heinous crime of not knowing the specific statistics [again], if indeed they exist)

In the same vein, what is the point of the 'THIS!!!!' crash video? If you're showing it on a "f*** me! have you seen this one?" thread, fine, but don't try and justify it on here as an educational tool, what exactly has anyone learnt from it? We all know it ain't pretty IF, I say again, IF it all goes wrong.

You wonder why ****e Hawk thought you were negative? Let's take a look at a quick précis of your gist then shall we.
'Here's a list of every helicopter malfunction known to mankind and WHEN (quote) it all goes wrong, here's a horror video of the mess and oh yes you're going to wipe out anyone within a ten mile radius and leave your loved ones bereaved.'

Mmm, most constructive?! I'm confused, you say you'll have a drink on the crew and you'd not say you'd never attempt it. Strange, because if I had your thought process I'm buggered if I'd go anywhere near the aqua Audi!

Oh yeah, nearly forgot. Thanks for the granny egg sucking 'things you should be doing when fogged in' tip.....Bowl gripping!

[SilsoeSid]

Nice one ShyT;

Your wish is my command.....

modern, fully equipped SAR aircraft -
http://www.rcafmuseum.on.ca/images9/CH-149-1.jpg

containing a fully trained and competent crew -
http://www.brickshelf.com/gallery/DanJassim/StarshipGibraltar/gibraltar-crewmen.jpg

full and proper recce of the scene -
http://www.vision-carrieres.com/ig/competence-en.jpg

come to the perfect judgement on how to rescue me -
http://www.uwm.edu/~nmwolter/moescreaming.gif

carry out a final safety brief -
http://www.ebaumsworld.com/images/moosaythat.jpg

flawless pickup without my feet getting wet -
http://www.cover-up.co.uk/welling/535.jpg

clean NHS hospital -
http://ux1.eiu.edu/~cfnek/gifsplus/british/nhs.jpg

a team of beautiful nurses -
http://www.colorado.edu/StudentGroups/AED/members/newsletters/02152004/poster_67k.jpg


happily married and produce scores of beautiful, well behaved children and live happily ever after.... -
Now that is just a ridiculous request!

:D


Just as a matter of interest, does anyone know how long the Audi lasted after the rescue?

[ShyTorque]

Sid,

Great pics...'cept the nurses weren't actually quite as good looking as I had hoped for - a couple of 'em haven't waxed their legs or their top lip recently.... ;)

Oh yes, and the 101 isn't capable of a single engined hover..... and er.....I'm a bit worried about that tail rotor - ask the Navy! :E

Don't worry about the Audi - they're galvanised :8

[Coconutty]

SID - I haven't heard whether the car was swept away or not,
but I reckon it will be a big insurance job with all that water in the works ...
Wonder the driver would choose as a replacement ?

The sporty TT roadster ??

http://bf2.syd.com.cn/other/auto/gy/audi/img/audi_tt_roadster_3+.jpg

... the more sedate A4 saloon ???

http://www.kyc.edu.hk/itteach/seed1/photoimpact/Kenneth's%20Audi.jpg

... or stick with the Estate version but go for an even more challenging crossing :ok:

http://www.voggenhuber.com/Haendler/A00304/ge/audi/kund/news/A003041015949738419.jpg

[SilsoeSid]

Well ShyT, I tried my best to please you but you still give me problems.

I'll provide the Mach 3 for the nurses, if you'll read this about the 101 from the WHL website (http://www.whl.co.uk/eh101news/eh101news_current/sar.html)

"A key feature of EH101 in SAR service is its ability to undertake long-range cruise on two engines whilst reverting to three engines for the rescue operation. The three-engine configuration is especially significant in search and rescue operations since, unlike current SAR helicopters, EH101 would be able to continue with its mission even if one of its engines failed in the hover."


So now you want an SAR aircraft that can hover after a double engine malfunction. :{

I'll see what's out there!

Regards,

SS

[Bearintheair]

I only found out about this today ! Looks like a job well done.

As I see it, the key things in a situation like this are: assess the problem, work out if you can do anything, assess the risks to all concerened, agree a course of action as a crew and get on with it !

The problem is the CAA don't see it like that. After a similar incident in Sussex a few years ago when a child was saved from certain drowning (already face down in the sea), by a police helo with much better single engine performance than a Bo 105, with an experienced police/hems/sar pilot, with a crew wearing lifejackets and current for wet drills and huet, we all received the gypsies warning !

The Police Air Ops Manual (CAP 612) was amended and it was made clear to all police units that the next pilot to attempt to save life in this way (successful or not) was in the doo-doo.

It'll be interesting to see how they deal with this, if they take no action against the pilot then all their previous threats are rendered meaningless and we can all get on with using helos to their best effect in these occasional but crucial lifesaving situations.

[Hughes500]

Guys and Gals most are mising the point about single engine performance, loss of tail rotor etc etc. Life and flying is about exposure and controlling risk.

The chance of an engine failing or tailrotor going is remote. Let me remind you 99% of everyone on Rotorheads would have learnt on a single engine 1 tailrotor aircraft. You took the judgement, it was perfectly safe then ! So what is the difference if a very experienced crew with a very well proven ac did what they did. Lets face it everyone who flies enters the avoid curve ( whoops could be starting something else now) everyday they fly.

I m sure the crew weighed up the odds, good on them, a correct desicion. If we took the argument to the "nth" degree no one on this forum would get in a helicopter unless it had

3 engines
2 tail rotors
2 main rotor gearboxs
2 main rotorheads
2 rotating swashplates

need i go on

[Freak Brother]

Friends, Romans, countrymen; lend me your swords so that I may fall onto them!

I have been reading this thread with great interest and there are certain issues that should be qualified from experience with this type of helicopter and this operational environment.

It should be noted that whilst it is reasonable to pose the ‘what if’ scenario, it should also be reasonable to ask the questions: How did they do that? and Why did they do that? in order for better understanding throughout the whole industry so that possible lessons may be learned and new practices adopted. If the initial query is too offensive and the replies too defensive, then this surely hinders productive discussion.

Some posts referred to despatch criteria and CRM procedure in this particular operation. When an emergency services helicopter is despatched, it is done so taking into account all available information at the time. Once the helicopter is called, the crew will be initiating CRM procedures and with regular updates en route and taking into account environmental variables a crew decision may be made whether or not to proceed. However, once it is clear that the helicopter is required to play a role, then the crew can only make a final decision on the course of action they should take when they have arrived on scene and collated and analysed all past and present available information.

Some key elements here to consider are:

Was there an impending risk to human life?
Could the helicopter be used effectively in either a supporting or leading role although it is not equipped with the correct equipment?
Will other emergency responses be effective and were they available?
Once the helicopter is considered, is the risk to all parties calculated and deemed acceptable and necessary and can the risk be minimised in any way.

Most of the above we can presume to be correct, the final question is one of risk?

What if there was a mechanical failure and could the helicopter be controlled somewhat to minimise risk to persons in the vicinity?
Was the car a stable platform for the crewmember to deplane onto without any safety equipment.

Emergency services helicopters are afforded certain exemptions from governing bodies because it is recognised that the helicopter can only achieve its role if it is allowed to perform as other general aviation helicopters are not allowed. With this comes an increased risk environment, and the crew experience this and accept this as part of the role. However, this does not mean that these exemptions are to be abused in any way.
All aircraft are given certain exemptions to regulations: When dealing with emergencies and to save human life.
The perception of risk and its qualification thereafter is really dependent on experience and training and sometimes this perception may be warped.

The real statement here is:
Although we may assume certain details, we were not on scene with the crew at the time and were not privy to their briefings.
There are certainly lessons to be learned, as with any situation and equipment and training should be reviewed.
In this one off situation you should ask yourselves honestly…How would I have acted? And I can guarantee that there will be elements of your actions/decisions that you would change.

Whilst flying for the emergency services, these situations do present themselves once in a while. This is sometimes a scenario difficult to understand by persons not involved in this kind of operation. Sometimes, it is true that a certain scenario will present itself more than once on different days and your actions may be completely different…you can only decide at the time to make a go/no go decision taking into account all available information.

[NickLappos]

We never ask the question right when we try to specify what our helos should have as equipment. The answer is too obvious if we try to just add things, as when we answer the question, "Which would you rather have, one engine or two?" or "Which would you rather have, two engines or three?"

In design, things must balance, so when you add something, you take something else away. I know this is difficult to grasp, but it is esential to understanding how to make informed decisions on flying machines. Imagine that you are simply bound to take something off the table when you add something else. In other words, you must do what designers do, and make the painful choice of what you will take away when you add what you want.

So always ask the question this way, "Which would you rather have, two tail rotors, or one more passenger carried, and 10% more range and 10% less operating cost?"

"Which would you rather have, three engines, or two engines and 20% more range, and 33% lower operating cost and 33% lower purchase price?"

These painful questions are what we must deal with, otherwise every choice must end up as Hughes500 has so aptly listed! More of everything, please!

[handysnaks]

Nick, I think there may be a mistake here....

"Which would you rather have, three engines, or two engines and 20% more range, and 33% lower operating cost and 33% lower purchase price?"

I think this part of you post has come onto pprune when you probably meant to send it to the Presidential Helicopter Purchase Committee;)

Handy:ok:

[pilotwolf]

bearintheair... weren't Sussex still operating the BO105 when that job happended?

PW

[Bearintheair]

PW - No we had a shiny new 902

FB - Good post !

My only comment is that all of us in the Emergency Services may at some time find ourselves in the situation where we have to choose between doing something or watching someone die.

As you say that has to be a judgement call on the day, taking all the many variables into account. There will undoubtedly be occasions where we are unable to do anything to help.

My only regret is that the regulators by threatening prosecution under any circumstances don't see it the same way as the crews concerned.

[helmet fire]

Amazing that this thread keeps on keeping on.

There is negligable risk involved in the entire operation. Hover exits/entries are straight forward, routine and can be achieved easily even by an untrained goat (see my earlier post). The likelyhood of mechanical failure is negligable. The likelyhood of serious injury IF a mechanical risk occured is even smaller, and must be considered effen remote.

The risk to the Audi driver is high.

Negligable risk Vs high gain. No rocket science needed here.

......and HnH conceeded this pages ago.

[Thomas coupling]

Helmet fire: with comments like that you're only exacerbating the thread further.....................

I don't know what language you're speaking but it's not aviation:

Hover exits/entries are straight forward, routine and can be achieved easily even by an untrained goat

What does that mean????

The likelyhood of serious injury IF a mechanical risk occured

Never mind serious injury due to mechanical problems, what about:

1. the paramedic falling into the water without a maewest?
2. The chopper losing its hover references and clipping the paramedic
3. The casualty pulling the paramedic into the water.
4. The victim being blown off the car into the water.


and on and on...

Grow up will you and read everyones comments.
This is a job, not without serious risk, very serious, deadly, risk!
You have chosen NOT to identify all the risks and instead gone straight for the prize of becoming a hero for the day.....
Obviously not CRM trained, then?

A most unprofessional, dare I say dangerous, assessment of the situation.

[helmet fire]

Thank you for your comments TC, but just incase you are not joking:

Firstly, the hover exits. ROUTINE is the word for it. I understand if some dont think that this is the case, but that is more a question of flying background than anything else. For example, I dont think that air to air refueling is a low risk manoeuvre for me, but I am sure it is pretty run of the mill for those that do it day to day. Hover entry/exit is a routine manoeuvre from my perspective, and thus raises litlle concern in the way of risk increase. And this would hold true for many pilots. I accept your point of view that it may some how be considered risky, but your opinion does not make it fact, it simply makes it worth reviewing.

As for the goat you ask about:

Read Goat here (http://www.pprune.org/forums/showthread.php?s=&threadid=149760&perpage=15&pagenumber=3)

or should I use one of your quotes?:
Grow up will you and read everyones comments.

As for the other dangers, when you say :"Never mind serious injury due to mechanical problems" I would infer that you accept that this likelyhood is ridiculously remote, and so we move to your other dangers:

1. the paramedic falling into the water without a maewest?
A: I presume we are assuming here that the paramedic is not trained in swift water rescue/operations? Yes this is a small danger. Same as the danger of a fireman slipping from the bank whilst throwing a rope across. Same as the policeman slipping on the ford whilst holding the traffic back. No real difference.

2. The chopper losing its hover references and clipping the paramedic.
A: Is there some danger of going IMC that is not indicated by the photo? Because this manoeuvre is ROUTINE. It would be a gross error for the pilot to lose reference with such nice trees, banks, and even an Audi to keep him still!! As for clipping the paramedic, we need to assume that the pilot wanted to get his skids wet, or perhaps that the para wanted to jump up and down waving his arms in a frantic attempt to attract the pilot's attention (who was hovering looking at him not more than 10 feet away).

3. The casualty pulling the paramedic into the water.
A: Why would he do that? Wasn't the paramedic experienced? Did he not take any such precautions? What about the roof racks?

4. The victim being blown off the car into the water.
A: Was there some high wind forecast? Dont go there with the downwash of a BO105. The goat that successfully conducted the hover entry was using his supergrip hooves on a pile of rocks - and was facing a Black Hawk. Or perhaps the paramedic didnt warn the victim of the downwash - but I would guess he is more capable than you give him credit for and it looks from the photos that the para gave the victim a brief.

and you want to go on and on. How about meteor strikes? What if a plague of locusts had clogged his engines? Or maybe a total eclipse could have made him go inadvertant NVFR?

BTW, How do you draw a line between CRM and my earlier comments? Please enlighten me (preferably in another amusing post).

[[email protected]]

Helmetfire - I think the point that TC wants to get across is that just because they managed to do the job doesn't mean that it was easy or routine and that significant risk was involved to all.

If the paramedic had fallen into the water he would probably have died - that was the reason for saving the Audi driver - he had no other way out. Would the paramedics insurance have covered him/his mortgage etc for carrying out something he is not paid or trained to do?

Have you ever hovered over moving water? it can be extremely disorientating especially when your margin for error is as small as it was in this rescue.

Casualties panic when rescue is near - I know of many cliff hangers who have launched themselves at winchmen and nearly come to grief. The Audi driver may never have been near a helicopter in his life and certainly won't have been trapped in a river in his car before - the stress of the situation may well have caused him to panic and grab the paramedic.

BTW I have seen more people fall over getting out of a helicopter on dry land than I can shake a stick at - getting out onto a slippery wet car roof safely is not a given.

Someone drew parallels with Boscastle and since I was there I feel able to comment - if any if the things mentioned in previous posts had gone wrong (engine fail, TR fail etc) we would have been stuffed but people would have said it was an acceptable risk because we were saving lives as we are trained to do and we were using all the right equipment. The 105 crew caried out an excellent rescue but if it had gone wrong everyone would have blamed them for attempting something outside of their remit.

[huntnhound]

Some really interesting posts now...

Another bottom line is that -as far as I am aware- observers and medics in this role are passengers...and not crew. Which I am sure a lot of you realise...and in the event of an unsavoury incident, would return to normal ground duties, with salary and pension still in tact.

Its you guys who have the licence to lose:ugh:

[freeride]

So Crab, what you are saying is that you (and your obvious skill and experience) have a remit to do anything you like but nobody else can do anything out of the ordinary?

The only thing wrong with what the guys did, IMHO, was not wearing lifejackets but they probably didn't know where they were going or to what. It could be that they were returning from another task.

Now, lets consider a Sea King doing the same rescue. It would probably have to winch from at least 100' due to the downwash on the car and spectators. I don't know the surrounds of the incident but at a reasonably high AUW it would probably not fly away from an engine failure at that height and would need a clear space to reject to. This would entail taking the crewman on a very interesting journey or cutting the cable and hoping for the best. The reliability of the 105 is very good; the Sea King? Yes, he would have had a lifejacket.

The 105 was in a low hover and in the event of an engine failure could move sideways a touch and be in the water. Floats are not much good to you in 2' of water. The 105 at this stage only had 1 POB as opposed to 3 on the Sea King and posed a lesser risk to the general public. The pilot was very experienced and who knows, may even had skills and experience far outweighing the captain of the military Sea King?

There is a place for AA and SAR. Sometimes, inevitably they will overlap and that is where good judgement and common sense take over.

[airborne_artist]

[email protected] wrote:

if it had gone wrong everyone would have blamed them for attempting something outside of their remit

That, sir, is a huge and sweeping generalisation, which does your arguement no favours.

[Coconutty]

... Sorry ( Sid ) for repeating your previous question but did anyone find out what actually happened to the car ??

Was it washed away, or was it eventually dragged out ?

It would be interesting to know as an indication of how stable it was on the river bed - if imminently in danger of being washed away in the current ( making the rescue attempt even more "urgent" ) then the action of dropping a crew member onto the roof could have been enough to set it free with obvious consequences...

Again the crew probably considered this along with all the other points already raised, before making their decision to proceed, I just thought I'd mention it as another "What if..." for consideration. :ooh:

[ShyTorque]

"The 105 crew caried out an excellent rescue but if it had gone wrong everyone would have blamed them for attempting something outside of their remit."

Possibly. Or possibly they could have been hailed as heroes. Difficult to say but a sad reflection on the times we live in.

IF the crew had decided NOT to attempt to rescue this man and he had been swept away and drowned, at the subsequent inquest, would it be seen as acceptable for the pilot to say to the Coroner, the man's family and of course the sensation seeking press:

"We were worried about possible legal action so we didn't bother to try to save this man" ?

I would think that public donations to the air ambulance would suddenly suffer a severe setback.

The crew put their necks on the line in more ways than one and did a good job.

As a comparison, how about an ambulance man who arrived at the scene of a house fire. He can see he could rescue a person trapped at a window and there is a ladder in the garden. Should he wait for the fire brigade or not, after all, he isn't trained in the use of ladders, doesn't have a safety harness and he might drop the survivor and he might be blamed for attempting something outside his remit....

Think about this - where are we going in this country? It's a load of bollocks. :*

[airborne_artist]

where are we going in this country? It's a load of bollocks

We are already there, I'm afraid, and we imported most of it from the good ol' US of A - land of the free, where lawyers rule...

[[email protected]]

Freeride - I do not think I have a remit to do anything I like but we do train regularly to winch in difficult situations; whether in the dark over a pitching boat or next to a cliff or in a valley with no flyaway option - we do it all the time and are well versed in the risk analysis that must be conducted before carrying out the rescue. How much training for this rescue did the air ambulance crew do? a big fat zero I would suggest.
I still think they did a good job and am not criticising their skills or bravery but for every brave man who goes into a burning building to rescue someone and brings them out alive, several are overcome with fumes and die as well.

As to your postulation of a Sea King doing that particular rescue, the hover height could have been anything from a few feet to 245 feet and could have provided a single engine flyaway option although the winchman would have found himself in the water. With the proper equipment you at least have some choice about how you perform the rescue and can adjust AUM to suit the conditions (fuel jettison). And BTW the Sea King has significantly better single engine performance than the 105 and is at least as reliable.

If the 105 had entered the water their chances of survival would have been minimal without dunker training and an air supply and it would have probably tumbled down river quite a way before anyone could have helped them (the water appears to have been more than 2 feet deep otherwise why rescue the Audi driver).

Consider the legal battle if the 105 had gone in but the pilot had survived and the paramedic and survivor drowned - I hate the litigious society we live in but nobody can be naive enough to doubt that some law suit would follow.

I am not arguing that SAR is better than AA - we have different jobs which should have little overlap - what would be your opinion of an R22 pilot who popped a skid on the roof so the Audi driver could get in the door? Foolhardy? Brave? He saved a life and so was justified in his actions?

[Thomas coupling]

You've got my goat now:mad: !

Let's get one thing straight before I fire off in all directions:

The bravery of the paramedic is NOT in question.
The skill of the pilot is NOT in question.


Let me tell you for a FACT, this isn't conjecture, or hearsay, it is FACT:

IF that 105 had gone in and caused collateral damage, either to property or persons, the CAA prosecutions dept; would have gone for the pilot's jugular. The victims lawyers would devour anyone and anything connected to the air ambulance organisation.

How am I so sure? I have been 'warned' by both the HO and the CAA to cease such activities (in the past), because :
WE ARE NOT TRAINED TO CONDUCT SAR.

Emergency services pilots do not retain their currency in SAR after leaving the mil. Paramedics have never been trained to conduct rescues, neither have police officers. This is NOT their domain and consequently will not be protected by the industry when things go wrong.
Try NOT to get emotional when you discuss incidents like this. Look at it in the cold light of day, if you can't, then you have no chance when the phone rings for a task like this:ooh:

Believe it or not, we do actually arrive on scene and decide that we cannot assist directly. It might mean watching someone get washed out to sea or fall off a cliff ledge to their death, but this is because we have prepared ourselves for this eventuality, both psychologically and professionally. We need to understand that we cannot simply plough straight in and NOT think about the repurcussions. We will do 'everything' practical to help the experts (SAR crews/firemen/mountain rescue coastguard, etc); barring actually rescuing if it is too dangerous.
Each job is different and some will allow us to participate. If I think we can safely help, then I will. I will not expose my 'passengers' to unmitigated risk under any circumstances.

I particularly liked the comment about an engine failure allowing the pilot to move sideways "a touch" :8
How much is a touch when you are going down immediately. That paramedics head for one, is coming off....on the way down. Then the helo will impact the river, the blades will tear into the Audi smattering the onlookers with shrapnel. It will settle on the river bed and probably role over, possibly trapping the 'crew' underwater.
The driver of the audi will then be washed away by the onsurge of water and die anyway......great comment :rolleyes:

Too many dooers and not enough thinkers.................

[helmet fire]

TC and crab: I accept your point of view, but it is based on a preposition that the activity is a high risk one, and this is where we differ. If I considered it a high risk operation, then I would agree with you and I think the points you both make are valid. But I maintain my position that hover exit/entry is a straightforward and routine operation that requires no special training for one off operations given there is time to brief pax/crex getting on/off, other than a pilot trained and experienced in this simple manoeuvre. And SIMPLE is the operative word. For small skidded aircraft such as these, it is arguably safer than winching.

It appears there was both adequate time to brief, and an experienced pilot, therefore I see little risk and that is where our opinions diverge.

TC said:
You've got my goat now !
So it was your goat was it?? Wish you would keep him off my aircraft in the future......
:8

[freeride]

TC

I fully agree with your thoughts and have turned down aviation tasks on based on what was sensible at the time. My comments re. moving away from the car and putting the aircraft in the river were based on assumptions (water depth, a/c performance, distance from the casualty). If you don't think that it is ever possible to do this, I hope that you are always prepared to crash on an underslung load should anything go wrong. Been there, got the t-shirt......Yes, the blades may have hit the car, the a/c tumbled down the river, but those are your assumptions not mine. Great comment you might say.

Crab

As a previous poster wrote, you make sweeping generalisations about other aircraft, crews etc. I might know something about SAR, I might know b****r all but you really shouldn't assume that everyone out here knows less than you about the job because that how it comes across. Despite practising everyday you can err just as much as the rest of us lesser mortals - winch wires around masts, tip strikes, gear up landings, downwash damage to name but a few. I agree that you are the people to do the job, but that ambulance crew had all the facts, knew the risks, knew that the SAR cab was 45 mins away and acted accordingly. I'd give them a pat on the back!

[[email protected]]

Freeride - I don't think I have slated the crews actions or abilities in any of my posts, quite the opposite in fact. My original point was that the SAR cab shouldn't have been 45 minutes away because the callout should have gone to them first rather than tasking an AA who subsequently carried out a commendable rescue.
There are lots of posters on this forum who happily admit they know bu**er all about SAR so I try to calrify my reasoning for them - if you feel insulted I am sorry I am not trying to be condescending - I am a QHI so I am used to having to explain things!
My point about risks is that the more you put yourself in difficult winching scenarios the better placed you are to make sensible decisions - but even then mistakes can be made as you stated.

Helmet fire - yes a hover exit/entry is simple but how many times have you done it to a car roof?

[volrider]

TC I agree with your intellegent post, I think you have covered it all. Spot on, Helmet Fire...well if I was involved in such an incident, sorry mate I will pick TC as the driver, because I know he will have thought it all out and all eventualities covered. A gung ho aspproach is not the correct way to perform the rescue. The crew on the day did it right and in the most professional way possible.
Helmet fire its real life you know, not a Hollywood movie with Bruce Willis at the sharp end:ok:

[SilsoeSid]

Anyway, does anyone know how long the car stayed in situ after the rescue?

(There, I made my post without saying that I finally agree with something Thomas Coupling has posted.Doh! (http://www.geocities.com/Hollywood/Academy/2229/doh.wav) http://www.geocities.com/Hollywood/Academy/2229/ihomer.gif)

[helmet fire]

crab, I think that given the excellent availability of hover references, I do not believe that inserting/extracting from a 1m X 2m (approx) metal platform with grab rails (ie the car's roof) is risky. But we all have opinions, and I am sure that some of the offshore night rescues you have done might be considered by me to be too risky (for me) because as I said before, our backgrounds/experience will dictate if a particular manoeuvre is risk acceptable/too risky for ourselves. One rescue for some, is inappropriate for others. No big deal.



Volrider: from what perspective would you prefer tc as "your driver"? The victim, paramedic, or press? Because you contradict yourself so many times it's hard to know what you mean.
You say:
The crew on the day did it right and in the most professional way possible.
But then accuse me of being gung ho when I agree with the rescue, and yet praise TC when he doesnt?

Also, thanks for clearing up the bit about the hollywood movie.

[as355f1]

THE HELICOPTER IS G-WYPA OPERATED BY POLICE AVIATION SERVICES AND FLOWN BY THE GREAT NORTH AIR AMBULANCE BASED IN TEESSIDE AIRPORT. THIS WAS NOT A SPUR OF THE MOMENT- DROP EVERYTHING- LETS BE HEROES CASE.
THE CREW EVALUATED THE SITUATION AND CONFERRED WITH THE OTHER EMERGENCY SERVICES ON SCENE BEFORE COMMITING TO THE TASK. THEY ALSO DISCUSSED A PLAN OF ACTION SHOULD ANYTHING GO AWRY.
NO THEY ARE NOT THERE TO RESCUE PEOPLE, HOWEVER ONCE IN A LIFETIME A SITUATION ARISES WHERE THERE IS NO OTHER OPTION AND TIME IS OF THE ESSENCE - WETHER THIS WAS SUCH A CASE CAN ONLY BE DECIDED BY THE CREW. IN MY HUMBLE (EMERGENCY SERVICES PILOT FOR 16 YEARS) OPINION A CRACKING RESCUE OPERATION. NOW WHEN AM I GOING TO GET MY CHANCE!!

[volrider]

NOW WHEN AM I GOING TO GET MY CHANCE!!

George Washington There is nothing so likely to produce peace as to be well prepared to meet the enemy

In relation to this thread that means we should all be well prepared to carry out this sort of rescue but hope that we never need to..
Perhaps we are missing the point a bit? As we all have praised the crew for their actions we should learn from it and hope you are never in the same position. But if you are then hopefully the outcome will be as good as this one:ok:

Helmet Fire, you seem a bit upset that I choose TC as a crew mate if in such a situation... I am sorry but I prefer to work with a well briefed crew that acknowledge the dangers that they will be going into, not lurch headfirst into the classic " I can do this...it wont happen to me" syndrome, this is classic CRM country.
All I say is plan first and do it properly with all eventualities considered. My dad always said measure twice cut once...think that covers where I am coming from. If that confuses you I will try and write more slowly
:ok:

[helmet fire]

poor me, poor me. I really wanted to fly with you volrider. You are soooo right, I am very upset now.:bored: :ugh: :{ :{ :{

I am sure you adressed your previous contradictions somewhere, but please s l o w i t d o w n f o r m e. And I am still interested in tc's, and now also your assertion, that I have some CRM deficiency because I am used to hover entry/exit, and consider them relatively routine.

Any more words of wisdom from your dad? I trying to put them in my collection of verbal gems and life's tips, but you are sending them down range too fast.

:ok:

[volrider]

Any more words of wisdom from your dad? I trying to put them in my collection of verbal gems and life's tips, but you are sending them down range too fast.

Yeah..He warned me about blokes like you:E

Take care and keep smilin:D

[Thomas coupling]

helmet: you really are missing the point. Joking aside, all of us can physically fly the 'profile' into and out of the site. This isn't the issue.
The issue is CRM [crew resource management].
What this means helmet is that the commander and the CREW discuss the issues associated with the task and make logical decisions on how to conduct themselves - is it a go/no go task, do they help other emergency services or get stuck in themselves, weather, equipment, etc etc .......
The issue has never been one of "is this too difficult to fly"?????

[Bronx]

I'm kinda lost now.
Where did Helmet say he wouldn't make an assessment of the risk and discuss go/no go with the crew as per good CRM? :confused:

[SilsoeSid]

Bronx,

Where does he say he would? ;)

He uses lots of different words and phrase such as ;

I dont understand what the dangers are anyway.
What is the danger of doing a hover exit? They are routine.
What is the danger of doing a hover entry? Also routine.
So again I have to ask: what dangers are you concerned about?
There is negligable risk involved in the entire operation.
Hover exits/entries are straight forward, routine and can be achieved easily even by an untrained goat
Negligable risk Vs high gain. No rocket science needed here.
I dont think that air to air refueling is a low risk manoeuvre for me
Hover entry/exit is a routine manoeuvre from my perspective, and thus raises litlle concern in the way of risk increase
I accept your point of view, but it is based on a preposition that the activity is a high risk one, and this is where we differ.
I do not believe that inserting/extracting from a 1m X 2m (approx) metal platform with grab rails (ie the car's roof) is risky.
IMHO, I would consider Helmet Fire to be a serious risk to all those around him.

[huntnhound]

Sid,


strong stuff...but on reflection, after all the stick I had at the start of this post...I have to say Helmetfire has had it coming.

Still some thought provoking posts arent there?

[helmet fire]

TC had a shot at me of not reading people's posts and then couldn't work out the goat bit. Volrider says I'm gung ho because I would do the rescue, and then says the team that did it did the right thing. Both ignore these contradictions and then both go on a tangent about my poor CRM: a topic that was never in dispute, we had not even got around to discussin it. But that doesnt stop an unsupported jibe does it chaps?

From what I gather now, TC now believes that anyone could fly the sequence. OK, now we are getting somewhere: it appears then that you would agree that the manoeuvre is a straight forward on (if we could all fly it)? OK, that was the main thrust of our disagreement so far. Not once have TC, volrider, nor Siloesid even quantified the factual actuality of the risks involved here, and I believe that that particular step is essential to the discussion/decision making processes of CRM.

As Risk equals Frequency times Consequence (which I am sure you all know), then risk can be subjectively assesed quite simply, and I think that can be used as a good tool here. We can consider the consequences of all the dangers TC and others have mentioned such as tail rotor failures, engine failures, and even eclipses - but what is the FREQUENCY of these events? What then is the FREQUENCY of serious injury within these events? That seems to be the step missed, and that is the step that I have focussed on. Not once have I rejected the consequence of these eventualities, but in order to assess the RISK involved, I must consider the FREQUENCY.

For example, the consequence of a meteor strike is extreme. The frequency of events is negligable. Thus the risk is extremely low (extreme X buggar all). The consequence of tail rotor failures in a low hover are varied but may occaisonally be high, but the frequency of tail rotor failures is extremely low, and over the minimal time that the aircraft would be near the car (worst possible moment) the frequency of this event is negligable: thus risk here is negligable (Risk = occaisional high consequence X extremely low frequency divided by very low exposure time).

Hence Siloesid, you can take all the quotes out of context you like (and irrelevant engine failure statistics) but that does not affect the actual risk involved, in fact it is very much akin to what appears to have been the common trap of risk assessment: considering only part of the whole picture (in this case the consequence). That is why I said "Negligable risk Vs high gain. No rocket science needed here." I standby that assesment.

Though it was not part of the discussion, if you would like to read previous contributions of mine re CRM and what I think, just do a search.

Now, as355f1 stated that:
THE CREW EVALUATED THE SITUATION AND CONFERRED WITH THE OTHER EMERGENCY SERVICES ON SCENE BEFORE COMMITING TO THE TASK. THEY ALSO DISCUSSED A PLAN OF ACTION SHOULD ANYTHING GO AWRY.

does that sound like what TC demands, volrider chooses, and SiloeSid might try and infer?
sounds like an appology to the crew involved might be in order.

Hunt n hound: I thought you stated previously that you had understood the crew's actions thanks to earlier posts. But it now seems that you have not changed your mind at all and were just waiting for someone to appear to articulate your belief so you could change back to your original stance. Welcome back.

[volrider]

Hemet Fire you continue to amaze me with some stupid statements, I can only guess that this is a joke, no one can be really this dim and hold a rating can they??? Do you not see danger??? do you not see reason??? when you look in the mirror what do you see?
SS TC and myself DO NOT owe an applogy to the crew as we have not infered anything other than direct praise for their planning and actions?? I do not know where your comming from but I fear where your going....
Lets get it straight the crew did well on all accounts ok, the problem is with gung ho attitudes of pilots and crew that take on things when they are beyond their capabilities.. funny enough I only found one on this thread...Ummm wonder who that might be???

as they say "got the t-shirt"

http://www.cyberspace7.btinternet.co.uk/images/Gung-ho-Black-Shirt.jpg

[helmet fire]

volrider, I am glad that i now amaze you instead of scare you, but instead of personal attacks, perhaps even a passing comment on the substance of what was said may give me some understanding as to your position.

But then if you had read and digested what I have been saying you would have already realised I understand where we differ. But this comes back to your contradictions: call me gung ho for considering the risks and deciding the mission was acceptable, and then be at pains to praise the crew for doing same. This will be the third time I have brought that to your attention: I expect a third ignore.

Lovin your work.:8

[volrider]

Helmet fire I will not be entering into a slanging match with you over this. You have your point of view...although you clearly seem to get lost along the way. I have mine. I will not repeat my support for the fine crew who did this rescue again. If you cant see the praise then thats up to you.
I hope that this is a wind up on your part and not some sort of immature tantrum because some one disagrees with you. Perhaps when you were young they should have said "No" more often!

[Bronx]

Helmet Fire

You gotta allow for the different culture in England where flying is a big deal and that's before you do anything with your helo.
TC and SS were in the military and my hunch is Volerider was as well. In England the culture is only ex military pilots are up to doing challenging flying, onshore anways. That's why most all police pilots in England were in the military before.
I saw from a post you made yesterday you fly in Australia. That's more like Canada and pilots are on their own in challenging situations and get used to making risk assessments most days.
Beats me why they're shooting at you. I can't see how your saying any different than them except you're saying it in a more 'No big deal, make a risk assessment and Go/No go' way and their saying it in a more formalized military way. You all end up in the same place but take a different route.

[helmet fire]

Bronx, I hope you are right - thanks.

Volrider; a discussion on risk assesment is now a slanging match? Oh thats right, I comment on risk assesment, you call me slow and dim. I ask about your comments on CRM and you call me gung ho and lucky to be licenced. I explain the formal concepts of the risk formula application and you call me immature and lost.

...and that is three ignores: YOUR'E OUT.

[huntnhound]

Helmet Fire..


Volrider may be OUT....

But you are well and truly in the landing net:ok:

[volrider]

Strike One ...Strike Two.... Strike Three...

http://www.arton5th.com/rockwell/wind_up_th.jpg

Volrider misses ..the pain shows...

http://onewaycorp.users.50megs.com/depressed_man.jpg

The ref points to the locker room

http://www.bernard-manning-wind-up-calls.co.uk/images/357.gif

Volrider is cheered by the faithful support from the intellegent audience

http://www.ciderspace.co.uk/photos/action/liverpool/04-jan-2004/crowd9-04-jan-2004.jpg

The crowd and Volrider realise that the big fish has been landed

http://www.ebaumsworld.com/images/bigfish.jpg

:ok:

[davehearn]

why doesnt everyone just get on with the job of flying helos and stop bitching between each other? this was a job well done, if your instructor asked you to hover at 5 foot next to the helipad you wouldnt have thought nothing of it. so why do things change when theres a car below you? engine/tail rotor failures are very few and far between, so lets chance it and save a guys life.
huntnhound if you have nothing to contribute that supports pilots and crew of helicopters who have probably spent the price of your house on training themselves to be the proffesionals that they are, its easy dont bother our forum again! pprune- proffesional pilots rumour network. not any old tom dick or harry who wants to slag the air ambulance service off!
aa/sar/police crews do a good job so dont knock it.
ps flying lawyer im on my last chance for speed cameras, do you fancy representing me when i get my next one?:p

[Thomas coupling]

What a complete and utter ar**hole:yuk:

Missed the point ..completely and utterly.

Is it coventry by name and not nature?????

[huntnhound]

huntnhound if you have nothing to contribute that supports pilots and crew of helicopters who have probably spent the price of your house on training themselves to be the proffesionals that they are, its easy dont bother our forum again! pprune- proffesional pilots rumour network. not any old tom dick or harry who wants to slag the air ambulance service off!

I agree with TC. You have missed virtually all the points that heave been raised here...one of which was that the one person out of all those involved could lose his/her licence......

ps flying lawyer im on my last chance for speed cameras, do you fancy representing me when i get my next one?

So clearly you have one set of your own rules you apply to flying...and another you apply to driving.

Either way I dont wont to set foot in your aircraft or your car.

Its double standards like that that make me:yuk:

[Flying Lawyer]

So clearly you have one set of your own rules you apply to flying...and another you apply to driving.
Either way I dont wont to set foot in your aircraft or your car.
Its double standards like that that make me:yuk: Then I as a PPL, and most professional pilots I know, would also make you :yuk: .

So, if pilots break speed limits when driving, it follows that they disregard aviation safety regulations when flying?
What utter nonsense! :rolleyes:

If you won't set foot in a car with drivers who break speed limits, that rules out most of the drivers in the country.
I make no comment about whose loss and whose gain that's likely to be. ;)

[exhemsdog]

Huntnhound - I have been away from this site for a week now - pop back and notice this string still near the top, due mainly to you and your inability to LET IT GO ! For Gods sake just accept you may be an irritant to people, or even wrong on the odd point. Do what you said you were about to do during the first few pages here, and sign off!!!
I'm sure you must be getting off by your constant sniping, and obvious irritation at a simply well done job. A simple thread gone crazy!!!
If you were a dog you would of had a one way trip to the vets by now!
Verdict - Distemper!!!

[huntnhound]

Flying LawyerIf you won't set foot in a car with drivers who break speed limits, that rules out most of the drivers in the country.

Trouble is after multiple years dealing with road accidents....every fatality was one too many, and, trust me, the experience is not at all pleasant.
Every fatal driving collision was as a direct result of one party going excessively fast..Rule breaking if you like.

Exhemsdog

There have been a plethora of worthy contributions on all sides of the arguement. If my starting this thread has upset some people like you, then tough. If any of my comments had been improper, or indeed those of any other contrubitors, then I am sure I would have moderated out before now. I did "let it go" several times, but I will defend my corner -from my perspective- and rightly so.

[exhemsdog]

Huntnhound
You really are a full scale turkey - sure there is a plethora of worthy contributions - mostly trying to bat you down or counter your pathetic efforts at defending your corner - remember you started this sniping!!!
God help anyone who is faced with you at the side of the road - NEVER wrong only pretends to be on the odd ocasion - you typify what most peoples view of todays modern police force is all about.
Maybe one day you will get your come upance. Sadam Husain defended his corner till the bitter end.............

[huntnhound]

I can take the insults all day mate.

But I will say if you are the pilot, and your flight ops inspector is sitting in the back seat as part of his inspection of your outfit,
would you do the same sort of task if the circumstances presented themselves?:ooh:

[Heliport]

huntnhound

Your question implies you think the crew was in some way wrong to rescue the man.
(Why else would it matter if there was or wasn't a Flight Ops Inspector in the back?)

It was obvious from your first and other early posts that you were critical of the crew, but you then went through a stage of suggesting you were only raising issues for discussion.

You've danced around it long enough.

What exactly do you think? :confused:


Heliport

[exhemsdog]

Well said Heliport - spot on!

Come on Huntnhound - say what you've been thinking since the start - you fine, law abiding, policeman you - after all isn't honesty your watchword.
As for taking insults all day long - have you never stopped to think why.... Don't see many people suporting your views here
Still we are all individuals........................

[huntnhound]

Well I like the blue...

I have always maintained that if I was in a crew that had a life threatening situation, and the deployment of a helicopter was that guy or girls last chance on earth, I would ask the pilot if it could be done.

What is arguable...and it has been elsewhere here.. is was this the case with this river and with this chap on the roof?

So if you want a definative answer on this occasion then probably no.

From a CRM point of view it has been intresting reading all the language patterns used by some of the participants. I always thought most pilots to be die hard rule followers. Clearly not the case.

I am glad I started this thread. I have learnt considerably.:rolleyes:

[Helipolarbear]

H&H....And thats what this wonderful forum is all about......Learning, discussing, complaining, b***hin' and most of all understanding our great and fulfilling profession................................well done!;)

[Bronx]

Huntnhound

You say you've "learnt considerably" with a :rolleyes:

Why the sarcasm with the roll of the eyes?

I think you're the only one who's said the crew shouldn't have done it.
The pilots here have supported what the crew did, and there are a whole bunch of very experienced guys amongst them.
They ain't changed your mind so it don't look like you learned much from them.

Helipolarbear is right.
This forum is a swell place to learn from other guys, the finest bunch of experienced pilots you could find in one place anywhere in the world as far as I know.
But we gotta keep an open mind and be prepared to learn or we learn nothing.

[cherrypicker]

Hi Everyone

I felt that I had to Post a few comments reguarding this topic, I am the paramedic who was involved in this rescue.
Firstly we know we are not search and rescue, we never claim to be, our primary role is as a Trauma team mainly dealing with RTA's and major trauma but we do get called to all sorts of incidents. In Thirteen years of working as a Paramedic all to often I have had to stand there helpless and watch someone die because i was unable to do anything ie:- burn to death in a car or house fire, I have had children die in my arms and loads of other jobs which are all greatly unpleasent experiences.
Now I know all this is part of the job we do but when we do save a life it makes us remember just why we do this job. We all try to do the best we can with the tools and skills we have at the time. I would much rather look back on a job and say we did everything we could rather than, if only we had done this that person might still be alive. At the end of the day we are professionals and we as a team know what we are capable of doing and what we are not.
Hopefully I will never find myself in that kind of situation again but if I did would I do the the same again? Dam right I would! and I know any one of my colleagues be it a pilot,doctor or paramedic would do everything in their power to save a life as long as they were sure there they had taken all the risks into account and made the decision as a team as we did when we lifted this guy out of the river.
Thanks again for all the support.




As you've seen, support for the crew's decision has been almost unanimous.
Thanks for posting, and congrats again on a job well done. :ok:

Heliport

[helmet fire]

BRAVO cherrypicker.
Great job, professionally executed. It is a credit to both you and your profession.

:ok: :ok: :ok:

As an aside, I am interested because I have worked for a similar organisation in the past ie the majority of work is secondary transfer - and a safety officer made the case for the wearing of a secumar vest with an inflatable life jacket collar on all flights wether or not the expectation was for flight over water. The vest also included flares, a PLB and a signalling mirror and was strongly resisted by management until we had a similar situation that did not actually eventuate into a rescue. Will this rescue ignite a similar case for you guys? Are you considering anything like that?

[Heli-Ice]

Great job cherrypicker, my best to you and your mates! :ok:

This kind of job isn't just for anyone, great to know of good people on it.

Heli-Ice

[volrider]

Been away for a day and this thread has gone wild!
First off many thanks to Cheerypicker (apt name:D ) for his input, superbly put and very much appreciated. I think or would like to think we would all have the b*lls to do the same task, its easy to say can't be done. But obviously your crew assessed the situation and planned it out and did it right, your a credit to your service.
On the other point. Why oh why are you linning up to shoot down HH because if he had not posted his original post then this story would have died long ago, no what HH has done is bring a fresh view to this interesting topic which has been debated, hotly at times but DEBATED. Which lets face it we all have learned a lot from this the pro's and con's, which god forbid if we are faced with it it would help us to plan and work out the best possible rescue, just like Cheerypicker and his team... I am saddened by some of the comments thrown at HH I won't quote them but fun and banter is ok however some of the jibes by exhemsdog are a bit far... Come on boys stop the bickering and trying to push people in corners, it can be fun to learn:ok:
I will join in banter and even a bit of teasing. But I do worry about a few personel traits being shown here...lighten up lifes too short;)

[ShyTorque]

I repeat my earlier praise of the crew.

I have desisted from making this comment so far....however, looking at the majority view on this topic and the tone of the original post.........the senior police officers I have worked with in the past have always strongly made the point that the police force must reflect society. It worries me that some officers on the waterfront (pun intended) perhaps don't agree.....

[huntnhound]

the senior police officers I have worked with in the past have always strongly made the point that the police force must reflect society. It worries me that some officers on the waterfront (pun intended) perhaps don't agree.....


I`m sorry, I dont understand. Perhaps you could expand on what your saying.:confused:

[ShyTorque]

My point exactly :\

[Flying Lawyer]

volrider

"Why oh why are you lining up to shoot down HH?"

FWIW, I think he's been shot down because of his attitude towards the crew who carried out the rescue - from the moment he started a thread about what they did with http://www.pprune.org/forums/images/infopop/icons/icon9.gif. Even when someone associated with the unit posted the facts, it made no difference.
You said in a previous post you thought HH was only playing devils advocate. I didn't think he was but, if there was any doubt, he removed it yesterday.
Apart from doing so sarcastically in one post, HH hasn't expressed a word of praise for the crew and, when challenged to say whether he thought they took appropriate action, said probably no.

I agree HH has certainly provoked an interesting discussion, as has Helmet Fire, and I've learned a lot.
My opinion as a PPL isn't worth much but, FWIW, having read all the points made by experienced professional pilots, my views are
(1) that the crew were absolutely right to do what they did and I admire them for doing it,
and
(2) bearing in mind the requirements of CRM, I hope HH isn't on duty if ever I need rescuing in his area - just in case he votes 'No go' despite the pilot considering that a rescue could be carried out safely.


BTW, you say you're saddened by some of the comments thrown at HH. I agree, from the point of view of good discussion/friendly exchange of views etc (although I have no sympathy for HH myself), but you've thrown a few unpleasant comments at Helmet Fire which went beyond friendly banter with someone who holds a different point of view. ;)

[Thomas coupling]

Flying Lawyer: I'd like to take you up on several issues if I may:

You categorically and without reserve, fully endorse the view that the crew were absolutely right to do what they did.
[Let's forget about this particular rescue for a while:]

Each 'rescue' is different:
there's the police helo that 'dragged' a suicidal woman back to shore using the skids for support.
theres the police helo that landed on the club house roof during floods to pick up persons from the flooded building.
theres the 902 that dipped its skids into the lake to pick up a kid who was in difficulties.
We've done several - even ending up on 999 and police camera action because of them :rolleyes:
Blah, blah, blah etc.

The aim of CRM is to negotiate with risk so as to minimise the negative consequences of carrying out said rescues. The above examples are the ones that got into the news, I can assure you that dozens of other 'rescues' were abandoned because the decision by one or all of the crew was based on CRM and the risk was assessed as too high.

It has to be this way for the reasons raised previously by other contributors, which leads me onto the meat of my observations:

Lets pick a ficticious rescue, say one where a helo hovers over a car in a river and a paramedic steps out to assist ( :ugh: )

Lets aggravate the situation, now and watch as the paramedic slips on the wet roof and falls into the river. He falls awkwardly and knocks himself unconscious on the shallow river bed and gets washed downstream without a life jacket. He drowns as a consequence. The helo immediately departs as it serves no useful part thereafter. The man in the car climbs onto the roof and sits there for 2 hours until he is eventually assisted by the fire crew.
A week later the wife of said paramedic submits papers to the regional ambulance authority claiming manslaughter on the grounds of health and safety.
How would your colleagues defend that.

Scenario two:

The helo driver can only fly the approach, down wind. As he arrives at the bottom of the transition to the hover he is engulfed by recirculating spray which impairs his visual references causing him to sink and impact the water hard. The paramedic is thrown out of the cab and drowns.

The widow sues the ambulance authority on the grounds that the a/c was flown outside its flight envelope and on a mission not authorised by his employer. The aumbulance authority sues the pilot (or company that supplied him) arguing that he was derelict in his duty.
In his defence the pilot states that there were mitigating circumstances and they were trying to save life...

You get a phone call from the pilot :E

You are invited to defend him.............

What does he plead?

[ShyTorque]

First scenario: Presumably the paramedic wasn't forced to go out on the roof?

Second one: Pretty basic stuff that a downwind approach is likely to cause such a problem. In this case it could be argued that the pilot did not make a correct and reasoned assesment of the situation when it was within his training and experience to do so.

Sorry, I'm butting in, I know... :ouch:

[Flying Lawyer]

TC

Given the facts (helpfully posted by Biffer) and having considered the opinions of the professional pilots in the discussion, yes I endorse the view that the crew were absolutely right to do what they did - and I admire them for doing it.
They made a risk assessment and all three members of the crew agreed on the rescue. It hasn't been mentioned, but it was agreed that one crew-member would be dropped off and wait on the bank while the other two carried out the rescue. (I understand he took photographs of the rescue.)

___________________________

Your scenarios:

It’s impossible to explain how each claim would be defended without knowing more facts/precisely what allegations of negligence and/or breach of statutory duty would be made. For the same reason, it's not possible to predict the result of the litigation. (It wouldn’t be manslaughter in either instance.)
However, the thrust of your post is that the health authority and/or the pilot’s employers and/or the pilot might be sued successfully if the rescue goes wrong, so let’s assume for the sake of argument that is correct.
Let’s also add that, whether or not it goes wrong, the pilot is still at risk of being prosecuted by the CAA and/or having his licence pulled by the CAA and/or losing his job.

So what’s my view then?

Assuming that (as happened in the B105 rescue) a proper risk assessment was made, CRM procedures were followed and each member of the crew agreed to attempt the rescue, then ..........

I would not condemn a pilot/crew who decided against attempting the rescue because they were worried about the consequences set out above.
But, I would admire and respect a pilot/crew who went ahead and attempted the rescue.

You've pointed out previously that if all goes well the crew are heroes and, if it doesn't, the crew (particularly the pilot) might be hung out to dry.
I agree that's a fair assessment.
But, provided risk assessment and CRM procedures have been properly followed, I still admire those who are prepared to take the risk of being prosecuted/sued in order to save or try to save a life.


Tudor

PS: I also have a hunch that you'd be one of the guys who'd put aside possible consequences to yourself and attempt a rescue provided you were satisfied (on a considered risk assessment) that it was safe to do so, and your crew was in favour. ;)

[huntnhound]

Flying Lawyer


I hope the fence your sitting on is well constructed.
You must work for the prosecution and the de-fence.

Some people might say it would be your biggest nightmare if TC was the pilot and I was in the back seat:rolleyes:

[Giovanni Cento Nove]

These guys did nothing outside the regulations or out of what is really ordinary and has and will continue to happen all over the world. If the cap fits it will be worn. I am surprised at the number of folk with the claimed expertise and experience are not aware of the following. I doubt that the CAA is really interested. These provisions are in effect in virtually every country. It provides for exactly this case. Hope this satisfies most of the issues in this thread - have a read.



UKCAA CAP 393

Towing, picking up and raising of persons and articles
55 (1) Subject to the provisions of this article, an aircraft in flight shall not, by means external
to the aircraft, tow any article, other than a glider, or pick up or raise any person,
animal or article, unless the certificate of airworthiness issued or rendered valid in
respect of that aircraft under the law of the country in which the aircraft is registered
includes an express provision that it may be used for that purpose.

(7) Nothing in this article shall:

(b) prohibit the picking up or raising of any person, animal or article in an emergency
or for the purpose of saving life;

New Zealand Civil Aviation Act

13A Duties of pilot-in-command and operator during emergencies
(1) Subject to subsections (2) and (6) of this section, in an emergency that arises in
flight, the pilot-in-command may breach the provisions of this Act or of regulations or
rules made under this Act.
(2) For the purposes of subsection (1) of this section, a breach of any prescribed
requirement is permitted only if the pilot-in-command is satisfied that—
(a) The emergency involves a danger to life or property; and
(b) The extent of the breach of the prescribed requirement goes only as far as is
necessary to deal with the emergency; and
(c) There is no other reasonable means of alleviating, avoiding, or assisting
with the emergency; and
(d) The degree of danger involved in complying with the prescribed
requirement is clearly greater than the degree of danger involved in deviating from
it.
(3) Subject to subsections (4) to (6) of this section, where an emergency (not being an
emergency that arises in flight) necessitates the urgent transportation of persons or medical
or other supplies for the protection of life or property, the pilot-in-command of the aircraft
or the operator of the aircraft may breach the provisions of this Act or of regulations or
rules made under this Act.
(4) For the purposes of subsection (3) of this section, a breach of any prescribed
requirement is permitted only if—
(a) The emergency involves a danger to life or property; and
(b) The extent of the breach of the prescribed requirement goes only as far as is
necessary to deal with the emergency; and
(c) There is no other reasonable means of alleviating, avoiding, or assisting
with the emergency; and
(d) The degree of danger involved in deviating from the prescribed requirement
is clearly less than the degree of risk in failing to attend to the emergency.
(5) Nothing in subsection (3) of this section permits—
(a) The operation of an aircraft that is not registered in New Zealand or
elsewhere; or
(b) The breach of any prescribed requirement as to the airworthiness of an
aircraft; or
(c) The operation of an aircraft by a person who is not lawfully entitled to
operate that aircraft.
(6) Where, in any emergency described in this section, a pilot-in-command or an
operator breaches this Act or regulations or rules made under this Act in accordance with
the provisions of this section, the pilot-in-command or the operator, as the case may be,
shall—
(a) Immediately notify the relevant air traffic control service of the action; and
(b) As soon as practicable, notify the Director of the action and the
circumstances that necessitated it, and, if requested by the Director, provide to the
Director a written report in respect of the action.

[Flying Lawyer]

huntnhound

Me, sit on the fence? That would be a first.
I've made my views clear in each of my posts. There's only one contributor to this discussion who has constantly sniped at the B105 crew but had to be pressed to say what he actually thought.

I would admire and respect a crew which elected to carry out the rescue in TC's scenarios provided that, as in the B105 rescue, it was done after a proper risk assessment and in accordance with CRM procedures.
I would understand crews who decided against doing so because they were worried about possible legal repercussions against them if it went wrong. Their lives, their licences; it's not for me to condemn them.
Which part of that don't you understand? :confused:

I accepted that crews who carry out rescues could find themselves in litigation if the rescue goes wrong - and possibly on the wrong side of the CAA even if it doesn't. However, what I am not prepared to do is give definitive legal answers to scenarios/questions (or predict the outcome of any litigation) when I do not have sufficient information. It would be irresponsible of me to do so.
If you can't understand that and choose to regard it as sitting on the fence, that's up to you.

Yes, I do work for the prosecution and the defence in various cases, but with one exception. To date, I've never prosecuted a pilot.

"Some people might say it would be your biggest nightmare if TC was the pilot and I was in the back seat :rolleyes: "
They might, but they'd be wrong.
I haven't met either of you but, on the basis of posts in Rotorheads, I think you and TC are very different.



(Edit)
As I said in my post on the 26th October, and told the pilot directly, I'd be happy to defend him free of charge if there were any proceedings against him.
From what I've since heard on the grapevine (unconfirmed), that won't be necessary.

[huntnhound]

FL,

I dont accept I have "Constantly sniped". I have, however expressed a view which differs to the mass populas of this stimulating forum.

Some time ago I attended a National meeting which was shortly after one of the incidents TC mentioned, where a Police unit had conducted a sea rescue. I agreed whole heartedly that it was appropriate, and excellent work. However the Home office advisor made it abundantly clear that the Police helicopter was not a search and rescue unit, and that repeat incidents were likely to attract the attention of the CAA. He further expressed the train of thought that should there be an untoward incident, there would be repercussions for every unit in the country, and made it quite clear that AOC`s would be suspended.

I, along with the entire group, argued that we had a duty to protect life (and property), and I would fulfill that duty entirely. Examples of people being trapped on top of a burning block of flats were debated, as well as the water rescue scenarios.

Each incident is entirely different, and yes, the crew of the moment made the right decision. But this industry, and my service cannot go headlong into search and rescue. we cannot.....
b) prohibit the picking up or raising of any person, animal or article in an emergency use this as a run of the mill excuse or indeed expect it to be a permanent line of defence in the courts can we?

Protection of life and property does not just extend to the rescued...but the rescuers and all around, and if , FL, you were prosecuting me, you would be the first person to throw that in my face.

HH

[volrider]

HH I agree wholeheartedly FL seems to follow on the usual Legal Beagle trick of not letting the truth get in the way of Justice, its all well and good him offering his services for free...which would be a first for this pocket emptying profession:E But the real facts are that unless the law is changed..the CAA are waiting in the wings to hang out some poor s*d to dry who gets it wrong, great while it works but as you have said before, "what if"
I think this has been a healthy debate where we all have learned. The crew as you and others have said are to be congratulated on the actions and outcome.
ps has the CAA said anything about this superb job???? They seem very quiet;)

[Earpiece]

HH I didn't realise that the Home Office Aviation Adviser had so much influence over the Chief Constables and their ASUs. I have heard that he is a majority of one, is, in effect, a consultant since it is a contracted appointment and his only real experience was as a test pilot. What has he done/does he do that the CAA hasn' t taken care of already? Is it time someone else who doesn't need an umbrella replaced him?

Earpiece

"Believe nothing you hear and half of what you see - you will be nearer the truth"

[huntnhound]

Is it time someone else who doesn't need an umbrella replaced him?


I wouldnt disagree with that:hmm:

HH

[Thomas coupling]

A most excellent thread, the credit has to go to HH for stimulating those parts we didn't realise we had! Thank you HH.
If anyone has walked away from this non the wiser, then more fool them - some sensitive old bones were rattled and more than just the pilot fraternity were involved.
Pprune certainly proved its worth on this ocassion.

Earpiece : The HO in conjunction with ACPO and the CAA invented the POM. Invented police air support....gave us both a job. Don't knock it.
Mention the big HO to any police officer (especially the senior ones) and they started squirming. It's too close to home for them!
Ignore the "berated" one at your peril.....................:uhoh:

[MightyGem]

We seem to have covered the whole range of people's opinions on this incident, the main concern being that it was carried out in a helicopter that could not sustain the hover in the event of an engine failure.

So, what would your opinions be if the aircraft in question WAS capable of remaining in the hover after the loss of one engine?

[soggyboxers]

Earpiece,

How little you know when you say: his only real experience was as a test pilot . The Home Office Aviation Adviser was indeed a military test pilot originally. He also flew on the North Sea, was the test pilot who certified and brought into service the Bristow SAR S61 which is what they now use on Coastguard contracts, did long-line work in Papua New Guinea, was test pilot with McAlpine Helicopters, flew one of the first ENG helicopters in UK, started up and flew on a number of police and air ambulance contracts (including Liverpool Police, Manchester Police and Surrey Police), back in the days before there was such a thing as a POM. He has been actively involved in aviation for over 40 years, most of it as a civilian, only some of it as a test pilot and has been involved with police aviation for over 15 years.

[Thomas coupling]

doh! i told you earpiece
:ooh:

[Flying Lawyer]

HH
I appreciate you’ve “expressed a view which differs to the mass populas of this stimulating forum”. (Only one contributor doesn’t seems to realise that.) You now say 'the crew of the moment made the right decision'. If you mean the Teesside crew, you’ve changed your view and (FWIW) I agree.
I also agree with much of what you’ve said in your recent post. As I said previously, I have enormous sympathy for crews when the law appears to conflict with what they believe would be the ‘right’ thing to do in the circumstances.
”if, FL, you were prosecuting me, you would be the first person to throw that in my face.”
I don’t prosecute aviation cases but that aside, I don’t know why you think you’d be prosecuted. You're not a pilot and observers are legally passengers. CRM means an observer/passenger can stop a pilot from doing something, but not make a pilot do anything he considers too risky or unlawful. If something goes wrong, then depending upon the circumstances, the commander of the aircraft might be prosecuted - but not a passenger.


volrider
You’re not alone in your dislike of lawyers; we're not a popular group - although I could name some pilots who have good reason to be grateful to lawyers, even to me.
However, it is difficult to have a useful exchange of views if you resort to making offensive comments about lawyers when I express an opinion. Thankfully, Jetblast-style lawyer-bashing happens very rarely in this forum. I've learned an enormous amount from professionals here over the years and, although I'm only a PPL, I do know just a little about aviation law and hope I've been able to contribute something occasionally.
If you disagree with something I say, why not just say what it is, and why?

For your information: No, it isn’t a ‘first’ for me to offer my services free to pilots. I regularly give legal advice to pilots free of charge which, in some instances, has prevented an investigation from turning into a prosecution. I have also defended pilots in court without charging fees (or for a nominal fee) because of their financial circumstances and/or because I think they've been wrongly prosecuted.

”Has the CAA said anything about this superb job???? They seem very quiet”
The unit's Flight Ops Inspector has investigated the circumstances of the rescue and, as I understand it, that is the end of that matter. I doubt if the CAA will issue a public statement. Unless there's a prosecution, such things are between the CAA and the pilot.


Tudor Owen

[Autostart Abort]

Volrider

BTW I have been given free advice by FL, his advice and support was absolutely invaluable.

Perhaps you should bear in mind that one day you may find yourself in a similar position!

[huntnhound]

Flying Lawyer,

Thank you for your reply. However....

I don’t prosecute aviation cases but that aside, I don’t know why you think you’d be prosecuted. You're not a pilot and observers are legally passengers. CRM means an observer/passenger can stop a pilot from doing something, but not make a pilot do anything he considers too risky or unlawful. If something goes wrong, then depending upon the circumstances, the commander of the aircraft might be prosecuted - but not a passenger.

I mostly conceed the above but I will question why you think I would be exempt from a certain line of questioning.

Imagine the worst case scenario and there are fatalities. Yes you are correct, the Captain of the aircraft is fully responsible for the aircraft. Yes a CRM decision may have been made involving all those on board- albeit we are not crew and passangers as you rightly state.
Where does that leave the Police officer in either the coroners court or criminal court? Surely I would be quizzed on my prime role as a Police officer...The protection of life? Me saying "well its not my fault I`m not the captain" is hardly a solid arguement is it?
Are you saying a barister would not challenge my role as a Police officer? I`m not saying I`d end up in the jailhouse but I`d be cannon fodder to your mob wouldn`t I?

HH:ugh:

[ShyTorque]

I would like to think that IF there was no alternative, I would still put my own neck on the block if I thought it reasonable so to do. In truth, I have been in that situation a number of times (ex SAR and ex police). Only once did I refuse a request, a similar situation involving (inebrated) persons in the river by night, because there WAS a possible alternative, which subsequently worked without fault. The Fire Chief's proposed use of the helicopter in those particular circumstances would have endangered both the aircraft and the survivors. I took criticism for my decision afterwards but I KNOW I was correct.

However, is it a criminal offence for a reasonable person acting for the emergency services to attempt to save life but to fail because an aircraft suffered a mechanical failure?

I certainly hope not. If someone were prosecuted for the above it would surely cause an outcry from both within the emergency services and from the general public. (This compensation culture mentality has gone way too far IMHO).

"The expression of damned if you do, damned if you don't" comes strongly to mind.

[Helinut]

Shy Torque's post has prompted me to raise another question closely linked to this thread, that I have been chewing over.

As a matter of public policy, is the CAA's stance over this topic justifiable, logical and reasonable? My feeling is that it is none of these. We should not just accept this, and hope that I, as an individual, am not the poor sod that gets caught and used as an example.

Most will agree that if any operator requests/requires a crew to go out and do SAR work, as part of their planned and regular tasking, then they should be proviided with an appropriate helicopter/equipment/training/currency. But that is not what we are talking about.

We are considering the unusual, exceptional case. Where people are employed to look after public safety they can end up facing choices like these occasionally.

One or two analogies may help. Emergency services vehicles are routinely allowed to exceed the speed limit when on emergency calls - this decision accepts that the extra risk from going in excess of the limit is justified, because an earlier arrival at the scene may help save a life (or even catch a criminal). They are still liable to be prosecuted for dangerous/ careless driving, but that is proven on the facts of the case.

If a police officer attends a house fire, and is told there is someone trapped and the fire service will take some time, he may decide to enter the house and try and save the person. He is not required to by his employer, but he does. If the fire service could attend in time they would obviously be better equipped and trained to do this, but they are not there in time. No one is suggesting that he would be prosecuted by the HSE (the UK body that enforces work health and safety legislation) for putting his life at risk in order to try to save a life. If any action were taken, it would be to applaud him for his bravery (whether the rescue was successful or not).

So why do the CAA treat police aviation differently?

The situation we are considering:

Puts only the public employees at risk and not third party members of the public;
Only occurs where those put at risk agree to take part;
Is only done after a risk assessment using the available information and taking account of what is known.

I understand that the CAA routinely give exemptions to HEMS to allow them to carry out landings to sites where Cat A cannot be complied with, in order to attend a seriously injured casualty. This must put members of the public and the helicopter crew at some extra risk in the event of an untimely engine failure.
So they accept the case for exposing others to some extra risk to attempt to save a life in this situation. Why do they then make such a deliberate attempt to warn-off police pilots from doing the same sort of thing in the few exceptional cases we are considering?

Can anyone explain the difference to me?

[huntnhound]

I certainly hope not. If someone were prosecuted for the above it would surely cause an outcry from both within the emergency services and from the general public. (This compensation culture mentality has gone way too far IMHO).

ShyTorque....I completey agree. That last line sums up the modern Police Service in the UK:*


Helinut...

Very well put and some excellent analogies. I think your view goes a long way to explain the angle I have been trying to come from. Thank you

HH

[Flying Lawyer]

HH

If you “mostly concede”; you’re almost there.
You say: ”I will question why you think I would be exempt from a certain line of questioning.”
I didn’t say anything about questioning. I responded to your suggestion that you might be prosecuted. You’ve shifted your ground.

"Where does that leave the Police officer in either the coroners court or criminal court? "
It leaves you as a witness, no more. You'd be asked about the incident, and about any conversation with the pilot before, during and after the rescue.
No competent member of my 'mob' would suggest the ‘protection of life’ aspect of your job was relevant in this context. If an inexperienced barrister did so, then “I’m not the captain” would be quite a good answer but, to achieve full effect, you should add “I’m not even a pilot.” Then watch the barrister move swiftly on to another line of questioning.

I agree Helinut made very good points. How you can claim his view “goes a long way to explain the angle I have been trying to come from. is beyond me. Until the end of last week, the angle you’ve been coming from has been criticism of the Teesside crew for doing something which you perceived to be unsafe.

Shy Torque
”Is it a criminal offence for a reasonable person acting for the emergency services to attempt to save life but to fail because an aircraft suffered a mechanical failure?”
No.


Helinut
Rule 5 (3) exempts aircraft from Rule 5 if it's necessary "for the purpose of saving life." However, the CAA distinguishes between saving a life in the aircraft and saving someone else's life. eg By rescuing them.
Although aviation laws are theoretically made by Parliament, in practice aviation law is made by the CAA and passed by Parliament 'on the nod' without any debate or consideration of the issues.

[Helinut]

FL,

My reference to the exemption was to a specific exemption that I understand is given to HEMS operators by the CAA, rather than those within the articles of the ANO/Rules of the Air.

(This is only secondhand, cos it is not one of those areas I have yet worked in). Talking to HEMS pilots they go into a tight site with crew (sorry PAX but you know what I mean) in order to save the life of the casualty (on the basis of the info they have) and NOT Cat A. If they do not need to take the casualty out by HEMS, then in some types they then have to leave the site without any pax at all to get them below Cat A weights. As I understand this, it does hinge on whether or not a life external to the aircraft is (or is likely to be) saved. No doubt a PPRUNing HEMS pilot can advise?

I thought that your comment about the reality of law-making in aviation was rather telling. That was why I started my contribution with the question about public policy. The CAA normally get away with their regulation attempts not being put under any significant scrutiny at all. As with any similar situation, this can lead to poor quality decisions. They can hide behind the public support for aviation safety being thought of as purely in connection with airlines.

From time to time on PPRUNE, people talk about police work being done under military rules. I personally think this unlikely to be acceptable politically and not necessary. However, I would like to see the concept of the state helicopter introduced as a special type - the connection between what police (and other public service) ops do and public transport is a bit tenuous, especially if the regulator is less than risk numerate, and unwilling to look at the wider context.

A couple of other minor points:

In all this, I have been very disappointed in the activity (i.e. none detectable) by police forces and the apparent agreement or acquiescence to this approach by the Home Office. Or maybe this is just another example of UK law enforcement policy, where those trying to keep people safe have their hands tied?

TC summarised my understanding of the CAA's position and how it was transmitted very accurately (i.e. informally and largely verbally). As I understand it, there is no generally available document that records this position so that those of us under threat from it can consult it. The PAOM itself has certainly had some changes concerning rescues, but it remains an ambiguous document. The least a regulator shoud do is write down its policy clearly and equivocally.

And surely what the CAA means to say in its regulations is not really the point. It is what the words say in the regulation that matters legally (isn't it?)

[ShyTorque]

FL,

<Shy Torque
”Is it a criminal offence for a reasonable person acting for the emergency services to attempt to save life but to fail because an aircraft suffered a mechanical failure?”
No.>


It was a rhetorical question - I would have fallen in the river if you had said "yes"... ;)

[Helinut]

Shy Torque,

It may have been intended as a rhetorical question but isn't the point that the CAA are trying to tell us that such actions ARE a criminal offence, whch they can prosecute one of us for, when they want. If FL is reassuring us that it is NOT, then we are safe to assume that the CAA are bluffing. They haven't taken a case yet............... yet alone won it! But do you want to risk your licence and livelihood?

[Flying Lawyer]

Just in case there's any misunderstanding -

I assumed Shy Torque meant the rescue attempt was legal and failed because the aircraft suffered a mechanical failure. In those circumstances, there would be no criminal offence.
If an attempt itself is illegal for some reason, then there's a risk of the pilot being prosecuted regardless of whether it is successful, or there's a mechanical failure, or a crash.
So far, the CAA has taken a sensible line over 'rescue' cases but, as you say, there's a lot of talk about that changing.
Given sufficient facts, I can say whether something is or is not an offence and, in a 'borderline' case, express an opinion upon whether it might be. However, if an offence is committed, I can't give any reassurance that the CAA won't prosecute. I hope the new 'tough' approach won't extend to pilots in 'rescue' cases being prosecuted simply for infringing the regs, but only time will tell. The CAA has a very strange attitude towards prosecution, often prosecuting pilots for minor infringements (easy targets) while apparently doing little or nothing to catch and prosecute operators who are well-known in the industry to be cowboys.
Helinut
You're right that it's the words of the regulation that matter in law, not what the CAA intended it to mean.
The exemption "for the purpose of saving life" in Rule 5 is a good example. Not surprisingly, most people read that to mean 'saving life', but the CAA claimed it was meant to refer to a life-threatening emergency involving the aircraft, not to 'rescue' cases.
The CAA must have realised the wording of the exemption was ambiguous because I'm almost certain (no time to check at the moment) they've removed the exemption from the new Rule 5, leaving the law as set out currently in Article 84 of the ANO under which a pilot may depart from the Rules of the Air "for avoiding immediate danger". ie Rescuing someone whose life was in immediate danger woud be no defence to a breach of the regs.

I agree that treating HEMS work as a branch of public transport creates difficulties but, if I recall correctly, it was the Home Office which wanted it run to full public transport requirements, with some exemptions from the normal rules for operational necessity.

Tudor Owen

[ShyTorque]

Helinut asked:

"It may have been intended as a rhetorical question but isn't the point that the CAA are trying to tell us that such actions ARE a criminal offence, whch they can prosecute one of us for, when they want".

Yes, that's what I have a major gripe about and that's what I meant when I said: "Damned if you do and damned if you don't".

I would say that this is one case where the law (at least as far as the CAA see it) is definitely an ass, both morally and logically wrong. However, there might well be a test case one day and then we'll see.

What is the difference between this and a situation where DVLA prosecuted an ambulance driver for using his ambulance to rescue someone? Not a lot, IMHO. Many of us will remember the ridiculous situation a year ago when a professional ambulance driver was caught exceeding the speed limit in Lincolnshire and the police decided to prosecute him. The adverse publicity and public outcry eventually resulted in the case being dropped, and quite rightly so. Presumably someone in the CPS saw common sense and decided it was not in the public interest to continue with the prosecution.

This silliness is a perverse product of the compensation culture - the CAA seemingly want to to "fall in line " with so called political correctness, even if it means that someone may actually lose their life because of it. Are the CAA really worried that we might suddenly have the air full of "have-a-go-heroes" in R-22s at every RTA? I sincerely doubt that would happen.

Bring back the days of the brave and the free :rolleyes: - perhaps it's time I gave it all up and went collecting trolleys at Tescos.

[MightyGem]

Out of interest, does anyone have any information as to the CAA's
reaction to this incident?

[Flying Lawyer]

The unit's Flight Ops Inspector visited a few days after the rescue, spoke to the crew, investigated the circumstances etc.
As I understand it (unconfirmed), that seems to be the end of that matter.

If the CAA did find some breach of the regs and decided to prosecute, I hope the public outrage would be the same as when that policeman decided to book the speeding ambulance driver. :rolleyes:

The CAA has always taken a sensible approach to rescue cases in the past. Let's hope that isn't lost entirely under the forecast new tougher regime. Babies and bathwater come to mind.

[MightyGem]

Thanks FL, sounds like a good outcome.

[volrider]

The CAA has always taken a sensible approach to rescue cases in the past. Let's hope that isn't lost entirely under the forecast new tougher regime. Babies and bathwater come to mind.

The tougher regime will only be there to stop the idiots not the professionals...The chaps involved in this one had not done anything wrong, but this sort of work needs to be done by trained crews and thats the stand point I would guess the CAA will come from.

[SilsoeSid]

I'm sure you've all seen it but here it is anyway.

http://www.pprune.org/forums/showthread.php?s=&postid=1617896#post1617896


I wonder if FL will offer his services to the Audi driver in this case. :E


Nobody has yet told us about 'our' Audi and how long it was before it was washed away, if indeed it ever did. :ooh:

[helmet fire]

Siloe, you still worried about the Audi? Got your eye on the big issues? Did it wash away? Surely there are some witty pics for us? Or more interesting (though undefended) statistics for us?

I am wondering where all the debaters have gone given the Spanish accident here:

Winch accident (http://www.pprune.org/forums/showthread.php?s=&threadid=152935)

Volrider. TC. Ous es tu?

Interesting that this well thought out flood rescue can produce so many pages of arguement, yet an accident that we can all learn from gathers silence. Is it our need to thrash one another for no apparent gain? Or to personify arguement rather than gain knowledge from our disagreements? Bueller?

[volrider]

Pelmetfire I will raise to your bait as I am trying to sit at home bored...another story you don't wanna hear:sad:
Anyway nice to see your back with the living the article you mentioned, yes seen that and it just goes along way to prove some interesting points made on this thread....
Still watchin the John Wayne movies? funny thing is you know mate thats all make believe the real world doesn't have a director with a clapper board shouting "cut do that one again" You get one chance in this life and thats why you train, train and then train again just in case it don't work out.....
As shown in that video it is awful to watch and something that "witty pics" as you ask for are not required.
I am unsure of your motives by trying to use that to cause a debate??
odd man... try some family movies over the festive period and keep away from Playstation2;)

[helmet fire]

:D :D :D



Is it our need to thrash one another for no apparent gain? Or to personify arguement rather than gain knowledge from our disagreements?

Polerider, I guess you have made your selection. What an informative post. And actually, its the X box for me!

:ok: