Winches on Police/Airambulance helis?

[[email protected]]

I hear a rumour that one or more police or air ambulance operators are planning to fit winches to their aircraft.

My questions are 1 Why? and

2. When will it be used and by whom?

[cyclic]

Not heard this rumour and probably would have done if it were true. If you are going to use a winch then you need dispensation from the CAA and then doesn't come in a packet of Kelloggs. You can't just fit a winch and start winching.

Maybe someone trying to wind you up about the precarious position of RAF SAR! It wasn't the two ex SARFC now working for the enemy was it? No scruples these people.

[sox6]

Are you talking UK? If so Devon & London are the only police with helicopters that a winch would be half way vaiable on AFAIK.

[HeliEng]

The new MET Police EC145's have winches fitted.

[MINself]

I hear a rumour that one or more police or air ambulance operators are planning to fit winches to their aircraft.
My questions are 1 Why? and
2. When will it be used and by whom?

Well....

1: So a suitably trained crew can winch when you can't land

&

2: So a suitably trained crew can winch when you can't land

:confused:

these 2 questions are a bit broad but why does anyone want to winch?

If this is true then a winch equiped police or air ambulance helicopter would give these units an option when you can't land. Playing devil's advocate for a moment, a winch might be a useful tool if an air ambulance could not land near to a patient if they are located in a wood or on the side of a cliff, the paramedic could winch down to then deliver immediate medical care, but as for whether they would then both get winched back up to the helicopter, that would depend on a million things.

This won't IMHO replace the conventional UK SAR but enhance it when these few aircraft are tied up or if one of these non-SAR winch equiped aircraft is better placed to respond to an incident.

The New Zealand, Westpac air ambulance service already operate some of their aircraft (BK117s) with winches fitted. I suppose its like anything in aviation its only a good idea if the need is matched by its use and on that time will tell.

Sometimes change can upset other peoples apple carts :sad:

Geting back behind hard cover now:eek:

[sox6]

Could it be more for paramilitary HHO than SAR or perhaps to replace police boats for recues on the Thames JIGSAW style?

[Thomas coupling]

No winches on any police or hems a/c in UK - sorry.

Met fitted with hard points but not winches.

You have to comply with JAR 3 Ops which says you have to be SSE during winch training.

You could winch in anger (for real) to save life, if you happened to have a winch onboard during a rescue (as if). Otherwise NO.

[ec135driver]

When I first started flying for the Police in 1990, they had a number of items on their wish list: Digital mapping systems, Fully stabilised FLIR / Colour HD Cameras, greater endurance, greater carrying capacity, better night flying capability (i.e NVIS/NVG), winch capability.

Modern, lightweight systems, better computers and the move from singles to twins and then to more capable light twins (e.g. Explorer range and EC135/145) has met many of these wishes, but it has taken time.

The Police have always wanted to have as much capability in their hands as possible and winching is the next logical step.

Why? because they want it and occasionally they will need it.

Who? well they will of course.

But first they will lay down initial training and recurrency requirements, which will be approved in due course and they will go ahead. Nothing will be done "Ad Hoc" and nothing will be approved without showing that it can be done safely.

CRAB's text implies a certain element of "....but only we can do winching!" and "...they are trying to steal my jobs!" Not true on either score

By the way CRAB, if I have read too much into your post I apologise.

[SARREMF]

Actually, there is some truth in this rumour. I was asked to look at what training could be provided to an organisation that was interested in seeing if it was possible and importantly, what it would cost - i.e. it was a what would it take to do this question. Not, we must take over the world and have world domination of SAR! SAR-H will do that!

I could not help --- but I knew a man who could. So I passed on the details. No further information. I think MINSELF has hit the nail on the head. It might, if they can afford it, enhance the service provided, but only when required and with a robust training scheme, continuation training scheme and CAA approval - loads of water under several bridges to go yet. It was an Air Ambulance not Police by the way.

More I shall not say.

[[email protected]]

Whilst I can understand why some police operators might need the extra capability for unusual situations I cannot see how any Air Ambulance can justify this step. When they can provide 24 hour cover then maybe a potential enhancement might be a winch but for the very few occasions when it might be useful I cannot see how they could justify the extra costs involved. After all, lots of hard working volunteers help to raise the cash to keep them in the air - are they going to be happy with that cash being frittered on providing a capability that already exists - and yes I am taking about SAR helicopters here.

Ambulance controls are still reluctant to call a SAR helo even when it is obvious winching will be required and often the patient is left suffering for far longer than neccessary whilst the land ambulance arrives, then the air ambulance and then finally when the casualty can't be recovered someone bothers with the ARCC. The capability is there but doesn't get used quickly enough, or at all in some cases so spending more money equipping AAs with winches is pointless........unless someone is trying to take over the SAR world........

[MINself]

The fact that UK air ambulances do not provide 24hr (apart from those joint police/air ambulance unit that do, namely Sussex and The Scottish AA!) cover is irrelevant when it comes to winching as the circumstances that require winching happen during the daylight too!

The extra costs of the purchasing, fitting and training with said equipment is suprisingly not as much as you would think. I'm sure all of the UK AA units hard working team of fundraising volunteers efforts are always borne in mind in this day and age of Cost Vs Benefit. I cannot see one of these amazing folk saying that even if just one life was saved or whos suffering was lessened from having a winch this will of paid for itself ten times over. Is frittering costs relevant when it comes to one life when its your Son, Daughter.....need I say more, I guess that is a dilemma.

IMHO UK SAR is not tasked more by Ambulance Control because that the SAR core function means these few units are mainly coastal based and often not ideally placed to be considered by ambulance control when it comes to activating the asset thats best for patient, its nothing personnal. AFAIK the RAF have never signed up to ORCON and what with the Seakings high speed characteristics they are sometimes tasked late when it is realised a winch is whats needed.

So, maybe a winch isn't a bad thing for some UK AA/Police units when its use will provide an extra tool and of course coupled with a comprehensive initial and continuation training package with defined SOPs at its centre.

:ok:

[3D CAM]

Crab,
For once I totally agree, especially with your last paragraph. In the summer we regularly see the Dorset & Somerset Air Ambulance going over the top of our hangar on its way to Portland Bill or some other exotic location on Portland. This is having left its base presumably, while we sit on the ground less than 3minutes flying time from the Bill. That is not what I would call good patient care!
But having said all that, we were used to take a cardiac patient from our base, having been delivered by land ambulance while the paramedic was still working on him, direct to Dorchester just before Christmas. That is the exception to the rule however.

[MINself]

It all depends on what you call patient care, in most UK AA they have numerous pieces of equipment and drugs that you may not have on your aircraft, not to mention that they may have a doctor as part of the crew.

Also in the UK there are a lot of primary hospital landings sites (those directly outside A&E) that cannot accomodate a Seaking.

Whatevers best for the patient I think should apply.

:ok:

[[email protected]]

Minself, I am sure the winching kit doesn't cost a lot to purchase and fit, but if you think that the training costs in terms of maintaining a safe and professional capability are cheap then you haven't done much winching.

My point about the 24 hour cover was that AAs should look first at providing that before they start strapping on winches as the benefit of night AA cover must be higher than being able to winch.
As to the patient - I am 100% with you that whatever is best for them is what should happen - unfortunately that is not what is happening at the moment.

I was at Wattisham recently when we attended an RTA and the patient was worked on for 25 minutes en route to Cambridge by 3 paramedics and a technician - not likely in an air ambulance!

You have me at a disadvantage as I do not know what ORCON is or why the RAF should need to sign up to it. I do know that we regularly fly paramedics from various NHS trusts so that they can see our capabilities and pass the information on to their controllers.

3D - the AA used to come all the way from Exeter to land on Saunton Sands, so I know exactly what you mean.

This is not a dig at AAs as they do sterling and valuable work - I just think that crossing over into winching ops is a step in the wrong direction.

[Special 25]

I have heard quite a few rumours that the new Met Police 145's will be used for more of a paramilitary / police role, 2 crew, winch equipped - Presumably in light of the terrorist threat and imminent olympics. I have flown for both the military and police, and can't help but think that the 2 should be kept apart. Street policing to be done by civilian pilots, and winching / absailing (anti-terrorist work) to be conducted by dedicated military crews who are well practiced in this role.

Of course, as I stated above, this could all be the rumour mill at work, but I believe that police forces in other European cities take on these additional responsibilites, so it isn't entirely over active imaginations !

[MINself]

okay, I appreciate the military and those civilian SAR units are the experts and currency and competency are two different things but I disagree with your opionion that winching is a step in the wrong direction for UK AA and that they should concentrate on 24hr operations first.

I might not have done much winching (well recently anyway) but I can assure you night AA operations are disproportionately more expensive than more day hours added to a unit hours bill. As night operations require the operator to jump through several more hoops when it comes to equiping the aircraft for night operations and training the crew, also there is the landing at ad hoc sites with the increased risk involved. There is also a lack of night capable hospital landing sites as civilian regulations require the HLSs to be lit with obstruction protection which operators have to conform to in CAA and JAR regulations before night landings are allowed.

I stick with the view that winching is an extra tool to aid patient rescue if used correctly to save time and benefit the patient, if the UK AA units wish to spend their money on winches then i'm sure this will result in them saving more lives without threatening anyone elses empires.

MS

[Thomas coupling]

Crab: Small correction there - one can work very comfortably on a patient in an Ec135 (and I would surmise a 902 also). It's not a bolkow 105 you know! There are (in my experience as a HEMS driver (also)) no restrictions working on casualties en route (including defib in an a/c).

The current crop of 'new' generation light helicopters (<3175Kg) in the emergency services configuration would struggle to fit a winch. They take up an inordinate amount of vital payload...something that should be reserved for the primary role of the police/AA Unit.
They aren't cheap (£150,000).
Both of these are surmountable though given an incentive.
What isn't surmountable is the legislation. Jar Ops 3 (HEMS and AA Ops) and CAA (Police Ops) won't allow commercial operations to train in an aircraft that can't sustain SSE in the hover during winching trng...end of story.

The EC145 hasn't a hope in hell of SSE in the hover!!!

The 109S could/might just do it at the right WAT.
But there is only one emergency services 109 in the country.

Ways round it: Fly outside the national rules - Paramilitary rules.
And that my friends is a whole new can of worms :yuk:

The Met were looking at responding to the terrorist threat primarily, rather than winching stranded fishermen from the Thames!!! Even this is a no go from the CAA (In their current 'commercial' configuration).

Anyway there is insufficient call for coastal SAR from the Police / AA. Thats why we have the coastguard and the bloody RAF:rolleyes:

[MINself]

Its not the coastal SAR that any prospective Police/AA unit would want to dabble in, its more of the stranded climber on a steep sided hill or maybe a injured walker in a clearing in a wood, all well in land, critically more minutes away from a coastal SAR unit. The RAF and civil SAR operators are far too proficient in all that stuff offshore ;)

I think the regulations governing winch training could be rewritten if a strong enough proposal was put forward. Who would of thought years ago that RAF SAR would be greatly reduced and civilianised. Regulations change all the time so lets watch this space.

IMHO its about getting the best asset to the patient within the best response time with the best capability and if this is a winch equiped police/AA aircraft with a suitably trained crew then its a good thing, adding to existing assets not trying to replace them.

:ok:

[oldbeefer]

Minself, I am sure the winching kit doesn't cost a lot to purchase and fit, but if you think that the training costs in terms of maintaining a safe and professional capability are cheap then you haven't done much winching.

For complicated decks on a bad night, perhaps, but for what I guess is envisaged here training costs would be very low. After all, the SH force maintain a basic wincing capability with virtually no dedicated training - if you can hold a steady high hover, you can winch, no?

[jayteeto]

When we did winching in the Puma, we were not SSE in the hover. In Belize at high AUW we were hardly SSE in the cruise at times!! Hot and high, it seemed like the only place you were going was down, albeit slowly.
A winch is a piece of role equipment, thats all. Think outside the box SARBoys, rescuing casualties is not the only thing you can use it for. The helicopters have been fitted with points for fast roping and other roles. Politics are involved, capabilities now have to be met by the police that used to be covered by other agencies. I am sure the Met did a big press release and a TV show about their new toys, including the perceived roles.

[Thomas coupling]

Sorry - am I talking to pilots who are not commercially orientated?
I do apologise if thats the case.
I'll spell it out once more:

Winching in commercial helicopters is controlled by the europeans OK? JAR Ops 3 (3.005(h) I think).
You don't go to EASA as a single entity and say: I think we need a winch so can you change your rules for me please???

Secondly - IF the helicopter you fly, cannot hover on one engine whilst winching , the authorities say you cannot do it. IF you fly Pumas or Lynx, the chances are you're mil, therefore you are not subject to the same rules!

There are NO civilian light twins in the UK that can hover SSE whilst winching (except maybe the 109S) Certainly you could make a 902 or 135 hover SSE but you'd have to strip it out and it wouldnt be godd for man nor beast then would it??

Do you understand the difference now? remember, AA's and Police helicopters are passenger flying commercial operations. Just like BA or Virgin!!!lol.

Civilian SAR (S61 etc) winch train SSE.

[[email protected]]

So where do you draw the line when you have a winch fitted to an air ambulance (I am ignoring any special ops type winching the police may or may not want to do)?
Given that you are very unlikely to remain SSE when winching for real, how does this sit against the present requirement for Cat A performance when carrying a casualty?
When will the limited training given to the crews prove to be insufficient for a job they decide to attempt? And given the limited training, how will they recognise a job that is beyond their capabilities.
Will the paramedics want to be exposed to the additional and very real risks of being winched in and out of difficult areas?
Winching is straightforward when everything is going in your favour - the training is needed so you can cope when it is not - why else do a conversion to type or a base and line check? If an aircraft works as advertised it is easy to fly but who would be happy with that level of competence when your life depends on the crew?
I am not being overly defensive of SAR but rather concerned that a simplistic view of what can be a difficult and hazardous procedure (even by day overland) will lead AA operators to take on jobs they are not adequately prepared for.

TC my point was the number of paramedics able to work in the back on the casualty and the ease with which it can be achieved.

[MINself]

Yes, aren't there any exemptions issued by the CAA alleviating any JAR Ops 3 operators from having to have class 1 performance at all times?

I beileve that the UK CAA do give exemptions to certain operators under certain circumstances and certainly ADAC, a German HEMS/AA operator in have winches fitted to their HEMS/AA aircraft and train monthly with them contrary to JAR Ops 3, maybe the German CAA have granted ADAC an exemption :confused: .

Any European Police/HEMS winch equiped operator care to comment.

Exemptions are granted by national authorities for just these circustances not just because civil Police/HEMS operators have never winched therefore they won't ever be allowed to winch. Its all down to the case put forward by the operator to be allowed to winch against JAR Ops 3 Performance 1 criteria. RTegulations change all the time.

[MINself]

I think the questions you ask could be directed at any aviation operation, when it comes to it the decision making process in arriving at whether you winch or not has to be taken case by case and those involved in Police/HEMS work I'm sure appreciate the extra risk. Alot of other countries already have winches fitted to their Police/HEMS aircraft and operate perfectly well with them, alongside conventional SAR not instead of.

With a good initial, continuation training regime and robust SOPs winching could be just as a useful capability with a Police or Air Ambulance operator and their decision to use it I'm sure would not be entered into any more lightly than a military or civilain SAR unit, I suppose its the knowing of ones limits and that applies whether you have a winch fitted or not.

[What Limits]

IIRC its more to do with the fact that in UK the Police/HEMS aircraft are certificated in the Public Transport Category, thus JAR OPS 3 applies in full.

Subject to confirmation from our European buddies, I think that they have a para-public category that exempts them from certain provisions of the regulations.

Regulations can change, but only slowly and painfully. I believe the Met Poliice intend to apply for a change to allow them to winch. Good for them.

There is a document that says that the Emergency Services are no longer to plan to use Military assets to assist in incidents. Thats why there is continuing work to expand the role of Police/HEMS in this country.

[jayteeto]

I understand the bit about civil ops and operating to passenger carrying regulations 100%.
What I was hinting at was the 'mission creep' to cover requirements to hold a fast roping/winching etc capability in some forces. I think that once you get to the stage of roping people into major incidents you become paramilitary. In a recent paper exercise, we received a simulated call to operate at an incident in town. I simulated a refusal, stating that I would be putting my passengers and the general public at risk. It didn't go down well, but the management realised we were not the Air Cavalry!! I think some people have modelled their future plans on a visit stateside. Remember folks, just because a policeman gets promoted to the top, doesn't mean he knows anything about civil ops.

[Flaxton Flyer]

Thomas Coupling wrote -

"Secondly - IF the helicopter you fly, cannot hover on one engine whilst winching , the authorities say you cannot do it. IF you fly Pumas or Lynx, the chances are you're mil, therefore you are not subject to the same rules!

There are NO civilian light twins in the UK that can hover SSE whilst winching (except maybe the 109S) Certainly you could make a 902 or 135 hover SSE but you'd have to strip it out and it wouldnt be godd for man nor beast then would it??"

The problem isn't that you can't winch from these aircraft - Jar Ops 3 allows alleviation from the Perf A requirements when hoisting at a HEMS operating site - but that you can't use these exemptions for training flights.

So, if somebody went and stripped out a 902 / 135 and did the training on that, there is no reason why they then couldn't hoist for real at a HEMS job. Maybe a role for East Mids "spare" 902??

Or maybe somebody could build a simulator rig - does it say anywhere that the training has to be done in an actual aircraft?

As to why an AA would want to do it..well I think we all know that the Mil are happy to help out with winching - if they are available - which is not always the case.

[tacr2man]

Am I right in believing that a seaking is marginal SSE hover?

[fone_effect]

IMHO I think that the Police using winches is a bit of a red herring. I have found that Police Officers will not climb a fence over 6 feet or ascend a ladder to look on a roof due to the health and safety legislation in place, not the bobbies lack of commitment but due to supervisors applying the law. Therefore dangling from a winch, connected to a helicopter which is not in SSE conditions would be out of the question.

[Bertie Thruster]

I'm ready!
http://www.luh-explorer.com/LUH_Hoist_DemoSmall.wmv
Add floats, 50/50 charity arrangements with the RNLI. (Add some MRT type charity funding, if any hills in the area) One or two more bases, every few miles around UK. Leave the dodgy 240 mile out to sea jobs and the night over water hover stuff to the big boys and girls.
Three o' clock. Target sighted!

[whinetyler]

No winches on any police or hems a/c in UK - sorry.

Met fitted with hard points but not winches.


I think the met have actually purchased one winch!

[MINself]

Couldn't agree more, those 240 miles off the coast jobs, into the middle of a black night low level over a huge sea, looking for a small craft with 10 mins fuel reserve :eek: will always be the preserve of those brave and a little bit crazy SAR boys and girls :ok: .

Not when considered against sitting in front of mindless TV consuming your own body weight in biscuits and waiting and waiting and waiting for something to happen.... please let the next phone call not be another wrong number.

[keepin it in trim]

tacr2man
it is not a case of the sea king being marginal sse in the hover, at anything over 3000lbs of fuel and less than 15kts of wind in a 50ft hover over water it is not sse in the hover.
you can go higher and try to get a "fly away" situation, and overland, depending on a number of factors, you can mostly manage to be flyaway. However, that is the aircraft in a "fly away" position, not necessarily anyone on the end of the wire in a "fly away" position!
Coming back to the point, the problem is not the winching when not sse, it is legislation, adequate training for what you want to do, an acceptance of a degree of risk in such operations... oh, and don't forget someone fronting up the cash to make it all happen.

[Mr_G_Box]

TC, whilst I fully agree that Police Observers are passengers, the aircraft are not operated under EASA but ANO, hence all the problems last year with changing airwortiness certificates when using relief aircraft. Therefore it would be up to the CAA to decide if winching was a go/no go, particularly as it is already addressed in the PAOM Part One (Sect5, Chap 6, para 2). I believe that all the Met 145's are fitted for winch but they only have purchased one winch to fit as required.

[Thomas coupling]

G Box - Take it from me that the CAA have decided that winching will fall under JAR 3.005(h). It is therefore an EASA issue.
The MET have 3 x 145's ALL with hard points, but only ONE winch, which for the time being is collecting dust in their hangar.

Until/unless they:

(a) get the rules changed - very unlikely. [One unit against EASA, from a country (UK) which doesnt want to go full blown EASA. Where all other european units dont need to comply with JAR 3 anyway???].
(b) change their operating status - possible and in my opinion the only way fwd. (Paramilitary).
(c) use an a/c that can comply with 3005(h) in toto.

Flaxton Flyer - well said and possibly the most intelligent of responses so far!
One can undertake winching (in anger) due to the exemption which is annexed to 3005h. [HEMS site]. And like other acts of heroism - the 'authorities' (to some extent), allow for "heroic" actions:

Police helo picking persons off a flooded camp site caravan roof.
Police helo dragging a female suicide (attempt) ashore.
Police picking person out of lake prior to drowning.
HEMS picking person off car roof stranded in flash flooded river.

All of these have been "accepted" by the CAA but behind the scenes, communications between the Police, ambulance authorities/Home Office and CAA were RED HOT!
It is frowned upon because the emergency services helicopters in this country are not REPEAT not paramilitary rescue vehicles like ALL those in Europe. We are unique in that we are public transport aircraft operating under a (P) AOC. We have to comply like every other AOC operator in the UK. Our only exemptions are weather and height related - none of which DIRECTLY affect the safety of our passengers.

Great topic.:rolleyes:

[SARREMF]

Dooh,

I said I wouldn't say anything but.....

This is an area I have looked in to very closely of late - the JAR Ops 3, EASA and CAA. State Aircraft - in which case rules can be CAA. Or, non state aircraft and rules have to be EASA. Now I wasn't looking for AA or Police but for main category SAR aircraft - crab, your job! It looks like that will be EASA. However, I think I remember somewhere in that EU directive that said the CAA [i.e. national authority] could dispensate. However, I think the CAA might have said they will NOT - which is where the confusion creeps in. Will have to look it up when back at work and print the low down.

[MINself]

It may be that you are correct and that (b) is the only way to go when it comes to allowing Police/HEMS winch training and ops, especially for training as a spare stripped out aircraft just for training? when training in this sectors is pretty much a non event as it is!

The exemptions governing using HEMS sites are many and if life saving of course operators are allowed to step outside the ANO and JAR. Wouldn't it seem reasonable then that you have to be allowed to train too and this is where I think the operators and/or getting the weight of public opinion behind this will cause exemptions/paramilitaries regulations to be written to allow winch training/ops to happen. Tightly controlled and limited but never the less winching.

One unit against EASA, well I suppose it depends on the size of the unit and who they have bating for them.

I'm sure this will make things "hot" for some time, whether or not Police/HEMS winching will happen eventually, if theres a will... to cut through the red tape forest :hmm:

[hemsmedic]

I hear a rumour that one or more police or air ambulance operators are planning to fit winches to their aircraft.

My questions are 1 Why? and

2. When will it be used and by whom?

From an AA point of view

1) To further reduce the amount of time it takes to get a resource to the patient, ORCON dominates everything amblance like.

2) Whenever the heli can't land due to the 2d rule.

IMHO it'll never happen with the current platforms used in UK HEMS. This has got nothing to do with the CAA, JAR Ops, etc but simply down to the fact that there it's a failry tight job working in the back of a 902, 135 as it is let alone when you have a litter swining into it. Add to this trying to get the casualty in single handed as your opo will still be hanging around outside or even worse still on the ground, H+S will be all over it like a rash qouting lifting and handling policy breaches.

SAR winch because they can't land, AA's can so there is little point in winches. I know that if I really needed a winch lift then the local SAR will oblidge jobs permiting.

[Arctic Tern]

Wow, so many people getting all 'precious' about winching/hoisting. A hoist has many uses - not all associated with SAR, so let's forget any idea that the Police ASUs or the AAs are going to steal work from the brave lads/lasses on MilSAR or MCA SAR. Frankly the type of jobs that the S61s and Sea Kings are best at are far too demanding in terms of range/payload/hoisting for the smaller 902/135/109/145. 'Horses for courses'. Having said that, there is a growing interest in employing smaller hoist fitted helicopters in the Urban SAR environment (whatever that means), and the occasional use of a hoist to deploy personnel or recover a casualty is perfectly achievable. Of course there is a training burden - nobody is suggesting that hoisting can be achieved by 'ab-initios' with only a few cycles under their belts; however, there is also no requirement to spend 15 - 20 hrs a month practising Decks, Drums, AFCS Ops, Sits, NVG, etc. Lets put this in perspective. Once a helicopter unit (Police or AA) has received a basic HHO course and properly grasped the idea of good hoist husbandry, effective risk mitigation, and good H&S awareness, there is no reason why they shouldn't conduct hoisting ops. Now the CAA have got a difficult task when it comes to dealing with exemptions to the regs, etc: principally because there is no State legislation that covers hoist training. That said, JAR-OPS 3.005(h) is a good benchmark and one that will be applied if required.
For those guys in RAF SAR who are getting all defensive - I sympathise. I share your dissatisfaction with the current situation and hate seeing those people at the MCA picking over the bones of what has been a wonderfully professional SAR service for many years. But please don't get carried away with the idea that only MilSAR pilots and rearcrew can do hoisting. There are many small civvy operators in Europe who are using BK117/EC135/EC145/A109 to conduct thousands of rescues a year in the Alps and other mountain areas. Stop burrying your heads in the sand and recognise that other operators have something to offer.

[tecpilot]

It's part of my job to train hoisting and shorthaul crews on light twins. All police and HEMS crews.
At first JAR isn't JAR in different countries. In some countries like Austria, Germany, Switzerland or the Czech Rep. police work isn't a part of JAR-OPS 3. Therefore the crews and authorities doesn't have much interest in JAR-OPS regulations. The most common reason of this exceptions are the costs. It's absolute ok to give more costs to the civ operators but please not to the public area! And how could i add more stringent rules to police units if in some countries the SAR job (including hoisting) is still done with mil single engine helicopters?
Second, the authorities are allways right and in accordance to JAR-OPS 3 they could allways take their own view to the things. Therefore they can decide what is HEMS, what is SAR, what is police work and under which regulations the operator have to work. And it's simple to cut out the police job from JAR OPS. Just a few words on an official national paper...
Third, in some JAA countries they have not the latest Amd of OPS 3 in use and still operating under Amd.1. And in Amd.1 there was no 3005 (h) Hoist Operation part! This is the situation as example in Germany. Therefore the ADAC doesn't work with hoists under JAA rules and doesn't train his crews "monthly" like MinSelf means. (Any 6 months they have a training). But they are safe, because they have very experienced crews, just a few guys in rotation on each affected base and they do such missions regularly and often. And thats the conditions to make such an operation safe and not any JAR rules. I do not see enough missions to be safe for the most police units.
If we restrict hoist ops to helicopters able to hover on an engine failure why we restrict not the whole flying to this ships? An engine failure during hoisting is a really very difficult situation, but it's the same situation like hovering over a canyon or between high obstacles/buildings, flying into a dense populated city? No more hoisting ops with singles?
Once a helicopter unit (Police or AA) has received a basic HHO course and properly grasped the idea of good hoist husbandry, effective risk mitigation, and good H&S awareness, there is no reason why they shouldn't conduct hoisting ops.
No, not my opinion. Training and real life rescue missions are different things.
If you give a person or a unit a basic HHO course and push them out to real life, than this unfortunate guys are coming under real pressure. Imagine, lot of money burned in the course and equipment, but only limited personal experience. A big pressure will comes up to do such missions. This pressure will affect the decisions made by the crew members and/or the unit commander in an unsafe way. In rescue business we have a lot of accidents due to such pressure. And in relationship to the mission circumstances it is not possible in basic courses to train all the real life circumstances. AND TO STAY CURRENT!!! My experiences are the following: A crew needs some real missions to get the brains clear, to understand and to deal with pressure and mission circumstances, to know the equipment and the limits in real life.
I have seens some units "searching" hard for any possibility to use their new and expensive toys. In one case they used a hoist to lift an uninjured person out from a place not more than 5 safe minutes to go and ordered a second unit helicopter to take a good video for the public of the "rescue".

[MINself]

It sounds like regardless of JAR/EASA that if the national authority wants to allow something it goes ahead and just does it! :oh: so if ADAC operate under their national authority regulations are you saying they do train every 6 months from their aircraft? and is the aircraft SSE/Group A performance throughout ie do they strip it out?

It sounds like ADAC are relying on their crew members experience for their winching operations and that they winch alot, rather than continuation training because of lack of "real" winches, which is great if you have that experience to fall back on.

[fone_effect]

Perhaps the answer is to make all Police and AA aircraft state owned and governed via Mil Regs and the H and S issues would be covered by the risk assessments done by the military for their winching/fast roping/abseiling activities, then any winching suitable for a smaller aircraft could be done without draining the resources of the bigger boys.

When SAR is privatised will they become public transport or remain as state aircraft operating as they do now?

[Arctic Tern]

No, not my opinion. Training and real life rescue missions are different things.
If you give a person or a unit a basic HHO course and push them out to real life, than this unfortunate guys are coming under real pressure.
This is a pretty jaundiced view - you seem to ignore the fact that many of the pilots who are doing HHO work for the first time are extremely competant and experienced crew commanders who understand the CRM issues associated with pressure. Many of these guys have been flying Police Air Support tasks that have themselves a good deal of pressure. In my earlier thread I wasn't suggesting that crews could complete a basic HHO course then go straight into real world ops with no additional currency training - my point was that it doesn't require a 40 - 50 hour military type course to teach hoisting to a safe standard. Assuming everyone is aware of their limits and the supervisory staff support the crew decisions, there is not a major problem. Let's not get 'wrapped around the axle' here. There are tried and tested methods of teaching basic HHO that include the use of a variety of training media. The introduction to HHO course should include a CRM element that reinforces the risk assessment/decision making topic. I just don't buy the arguement that the only people who can do hoisting are experienced HHO guys - these guys had to learn their trade somewhere when they were new! I certainly don't support the idea that only the military should do hoisting.:ugh:
Now on a related subject - how many of the so called expert SAR companies operating outside the US/Europe/Aus are really fulfilling their obligations?
Heard a very good story about a new set-up in the Gulf where a company providing Day/Night SAR cover has stated that it does not have a requirement to recover ejected pilots over the water. I wonder how many of the NATO crews who exercise in this area are aware of this. Flippin disgrace :* . Mind you, one has to ask whether the operating authority have asked the right questions.

[tecpilot]

It sounds like regardless of JAR/EASA that if the national authority wants to allow something it goes ahead and just does it! :oh: so if ADAC operate under their national authority regulations are you saying they do train every 6 months from their aircraft? and is the aircraft SSE/Group A performance throughout ie do they strip it out?
It sounds like ADAC are relying on their crew members experience for their winching operations and that they winch alot, rather than continuation training because of lack of "real" winches, which is great if you have that experience to fall back on.
As mentioned there is no JAA HHO regulation in Germany because Germany is still under Amd 1 JAR OPS3 and in this file there is no HHO part. Therefore the civ operators using hoists or shorthaul train their personal according to their company operating manuals. This operating manual is allowed by the authority, therefore it's in law to have only 6 months trainings as described. They do a good 3-5 days training twice a year including theoretical instruction and a basic mountain climbing and safety course. But not as described in Amd 3 all 90 days and not with single engine hoverpower. The public german operator like German Border Guard or police units doing hoist or shorthaul ops can do what ever they want, because they are not holding an AOC and they are not controlled by any civil CAA.
On all EC twins Cat A procedures are not allowed with sliding doors open as usual during hoist or shorthaul operations. Therefore there is no description of Cat A hoisting procedures and operators are not allowed to make their own RFM :).
This is a pretty jaundiced view - you seem to ignore the fact that many of the pilots who are doing HHO work for the first time are extremely competant and experienced crew commanders who understand the CRM issues associated with pressure.
Absolute right! No questions. But this is the situation in mil ops not in small police units. In this small units the pilot is mostly a civil or police self trained pilot. And the crew is only this single pilot, a observer and may be a hoist operator means the next suitable person. Because thats the normal duty crew and suddenly there is a need for a hoist operation. Go out! You have the HHO course done!

[jammydonut]

When the iced up 737 crashed into the Potomac river - Washington - a few years back, it was well illustrated how useful winches would have been.
It was amazing pilot skill to use the skids to tow frozen survivors to the shore.

[Arctic Tern]

In this small units the pilot is mostly a civil or police self trained pilot. And the crew is only this single pilot, a observer and may be a hoist operator. Because thats the normal duty crew and suddenly there is a need for a hoist operation. Go out! You have the HHO course done!

OK Tecpilot, I concede that you may have a point. I was assuming we were talking about the UK. :oh:

[[email protected]]

Tecpilot - I fully agree with your last paragraph of your previous post, I'm afraid that Arctic Terns simplistic view on winching is exactly how AA/police crews could get themselves into trouble. A basic course is nowhere near enough, even just for a fallen walker on a steep hillside.

I am not naiive enough to believe only SAR can do winching but I do know that winching can go from very benign to downright scary in a few seconds and only thorough training and constant practice are sufficient to provide adequate risk mitigation.

I am glad this has opened a healthy debate, which was what I hoped for; it does seem as though the inland/urban winching requirement is going to continue to be an issue - AA/police can do winching but who will foot the training bill if it is to be done properly?

Maybe the answer is more military SAR since we don't have the JAR/EASA issues and can operate anywhere day or night. All we need is some serviceable aircraft and we can improve our availability considerably.

If there is one area that could be transferred from SAR to AA, it is medevacs - these are time consuming and often tedious patient transfers that do not need a military aircraft and crew with a winch to complete. Get AA 24/7 operationally and give them all the medevacs and your precious SAR asset will be far more available for the job it is designed for.

[MerryDown]

I do believe the Police have some dreadful footage of stranded cockle pickers (God Bless them) drowning ! Recorded from the local Police EC-135.
While winches on Police helicopters will on occassions be useful, I do not think there is the money to support either the purchasing of the winches themselves, nor to provide an initial course and refesher training so a suitable standard can be acheived and maintained.
UK units are well funded to a point, but this is not the US where budgets for Police aviation allows patrol flying. Budgetry restraints are ever evident in UK Police operations of any sort, aviation or otherwise (MrBrown)
In Policing a lot of theories start within the Met police, some good some bad. I suspect these purchases are more related to security of the capital and the Olympic games, more than any desire to operate Police helicopters rescuing folk from swollen rivers. So in the long term, to have winch trained Police in the capital could be useful. As for the rest of the country I dont think it will happen..................
However security of any UK city is the responsibility of the Police service, and if there is a will to have winch equipped helicopters to be able to respond to that threat given appropriate threat levels, then we will see money being spent on winches . Day to day police units will have no use for the winch training, that is until some more cockle pickers end up stranded.
And that is when the Police Units will do what they do best, get stuck in and help get the job done, and worry CAA afterwards.
Watch this space !
Merry

[tecpilot]

I'm not an expert in UK police work. But seeing police units in some european countries the average regional unit consist of 2-4 helicopter and 5-10 pilots. They will do mostly a very wide and ambitious 24h a day spectrum of missions. NVG, FLIR, fire fighting, traffic surveillance, insertion/extraction of rapid reaction forces, sometimes HEMS/mountain rescue, VIP Pax, sling load and so on. In the most european countries they don't operate under OPS3. They use sometimes non civil approved equipment, non civil approved procedures and quality management, CRM and SOPs are not anywhere normal terms.
Because of the low frequency of the most "special" missions they would need a very big amount of training to be really current in case there is surprisingly a fire, or a hostage, or a hoist operation. Unfortunately also in the most units there is a financial pressure, a budget for the whole year. In fact i believe to observe a shear between financial and personal possibilities and the claims given by the public. I know police pilots having only 80h a year but should be able to be proficient IFR, NVG, sling load/fire, rescue,...
This wonderful guys are really ready to give their best, but it isn't done with new equipment. They need more money, more training, more missions and after that they could build a second column to mil/SAR.
At the moment i believe the accident rate in this small but special part police helicopter ops is much higher than on civil ops. Thinking about the last years accidents in France, Spain, Germany, ...

[Droopy]

Merrydown, there is only footage of one cockle picker; he was located some distance offshore on a sand bank by the police ASU who directed the RNLI hovercraft to him. All the rest either sadly drowned or had already made their own way to shore.

[Bertie Thruster]

Crab said:

"If there is one area that could be transferred from SAR to AA, it is medevacs - these are time consuming and often tedious patient transfers that do not need a military aircraft and crew with a winch to complete. Get AA 24/7 operationally and give them all the medevacs and your precious SAR asset will be far more available for the job it is designed for."


Crab, in my area of UK, the punters who pay for the air ambulance don't want the helicopter and the paramedics tied up doing one or two transfers every day.

The people pay for the HEMS service and they control, through the trustees of the charity, how that money is spent.

If they don't like the service, the people stop paying and the unit closes.

[MINself]

Maybe the answer is more military SAR since we don't have the JAR/EASA issues and can operate anywhere day or night.
Judging by whats going to happen to Mil SAR fleet over the next few years more Mil SAR is unlikely, all those former SAR aircraft and crews will be far too busy on working abroad!
I do agree with your opinion on night hospital transfers, although tedious? when its life saving/changing to someone, you may not be being asked to hold position over a small craft in a gale but its still essential work. This I envisage being on top of the current AA service available and whos going to pay for this?

[oldbeefer]

Get AA 24/7 operationally and give them all the medevacs and your precious SAR asset will be far more available for the job it is designed for.

Precious - you said it Crab!

[MerryDown]

Thanks Droopy,


Misinformed I do apologise, however it does raise the issue of , in that instance a winch would have been useful to Police Ops (And the cockle picker) . Police helicopters have a habit of being very early to the scenes of a lot of major incidents. I swing either way with the theory, if it does happen lets hope they train the guys to a high standard.


Merry

[[email protected]]

Bertie - my point entirely ref the winching - who will pay for the extra flying? I am sure all the AA donors would far rather have AA at night instead. However I don't suppose the punters actually have any say how the AA is used because they just see the stats on numbers of callouts. People won't stop donating just because the air ambulance is used like a land ambulance or they would have done so already.
Is it better that a SAR aircraft and crew are tied up for several hours carrying out the transfer instead? Not when there are enough people criticising SAR for not being available enough already.

The fundamental peroblem I suppose is that the NHS should fund the AAs just as it should fund medevacs (other than giving money to MoD to spend on new HQs)but this is very unlikely to happen.

Minself - SARH may well turn out to be all military pilots in civilian aircraft so don't presume that it will all be civvy. 99% of medevacs are vital to the patient and therefore rewarding to do but probably 10% are challenging and require SAR aircraft and crews.
With the NHS going more towards centres of excellence, more people will have to travel for specialist care and therfore more critically ill patients will require air transport - is a civilian SAR organisation tasked with coastal rescues going to pick up that workload?

Oldbeefer - just when I thought we had got away from the name-calling....

[Thud_and_Blunder]

Usual mixture of different-degrees-of-sense being talked here. As an interesting but sad aside, it would appear that (largely driven by NHS politics) the 2 England-based joint Police/AA units are under threat of losing their jointery. As a result, the 2 counties involved are faced with losing their after-dark casevac capabilities.

:*

Oldbeefer - very sorry to hear todays news from Shawb. Regards/condolences as appropriate, if you would.

[MINself]

Crab said...
Minself - SARH may well turn out to be all military pilots in civilian aircraft so don't presume that it will all be civvy. 99% of medevacs are vital to the patient and therefore rewarding to do but probably 10% are challenging and require SAR aircraft and crews.
With the NHS going more towards centres of excellence, more people will have to travel for specialist care and therfore more critically ill patients will require air transport - is a civilian SAR organisation tasked with coastal rescues going to pick up that workload?
Crab I appreciate you are very well informed but it might suprise you to know that the NHS has already funded some AA hospital transfers and no doubt will again, I accept this is adhoc but it does already happen. AA can't always step up to do this due to weather, dark or unserviceability hence thats why we'll need SAR to do this vital task at times :D ... for now.
SARH not completely civilian?... you might want to call CHC and let them know its just the aircraft there providing without pilots, or is it all of the crew coming from the military? My presumption is based on the basis of the contract awarded whats yours based on? Great rumour for scare mongering though ;)
Increased hospital transfer by SAR, not if they support more AA aircraft for transfers... who knows?

[CareBear]

Crab,
You seem throughout your posts to strongly imply that only current military SAR pilots should carry out SAR / winching type operations. (I accept that that is somewhat of a generalisation ! but the jist is there).

As an ex SAR boy, and an ex police / HEMS operator I would like to ask if you have considered that a large majority of Police pilots (and I would think AA pilots, but I'm not sure on that score), are ex military pilots and will most likely have a deal of winching / SAR experience. Certainly more than the average "basic training" that has been talked about in the previous few posts.

In general they will certainly have the experience to make sound sensible decisions in lifesaving situations.

I applaud your staunch support for the SAR world, but there are plenty of other pilots in the world who are quite capable of doing a safe, capable job in a difficult situation.

JMO !!!:E

[Max Contingency]

MINself - I suspect you are confusing the MCA Interim contract with the SAR-H contract. SAR-H has yet to be awarded and is due to commence service circa 2012.

[SARREMF]

Minself - I have agreed with you so far .... but not now. You are confusing the Interim Coast guard contract with SAR-H. SAR-H will almost certainly contain military crews in some shape or form - because thats what the customer wants. So all will currently have to include it in their bid.

Bad day at Shawbury. My deepest sympathy to all.

[jayteeto]

A short course would be enough for most ex-mil pilots, I did all right and used the Puma winch in anger a few times. Back to the original topic, I don't think the mets purchase was for SAR, it was bought (probably) as a method of inserting personnel into 'difficult' areas.

[fkelly]

Or just about having a bigger, blacker cat than any other ASU...:rolleyes:

[[email protected]]

Care Bear - no, any pilot can do winching providing he has been adequately trained and keeps current but that is the problem. Of the many ex mil pilots especially AAC, few will have done any winching and many will have only done basic stuff. We are forgetting that a pilots winching ability is only as good as the winch ops performance will allow and it is these guys who need the training and constant practice - how many ex mil loadies or winchmen are there in AA/ police helis? Not very many at all.

Minself - as others have highlighted you have some disinformation (Pres Bushism) ref the SARH contract. The main reason mil pilots are likely to remain in SAR is that is has been stated that there will be no reduction in capability and under present rules (and yes these could change) only mil pilots can operate the way we do.

The NHS do fund some hospital transfers - a fixed wing twin is used often but certain types of transfer - ECMO (extra corporeal membraneous oxygenation) for example cannot fly in it because of CAA regs and the AA are too small to carry the team and patient. The NHS do pay the MoD for medevacs and have to justify their reasons for calling on us. These jobs still don't need a fully equipped SAR aircraft though.

[MINself]

Yes granted I may have caught some of George's affliction, time will tell how bad this gets.

With the winching I absolutley concur that the military are the experts in all the areas of winching and any Police/HEMS operator will learn alot from how Mil SAR go about their business. A Police/HEMS operator could use winching effectively regardless of whether the rear crew have had an military experience after completing a basic course with continuation training and robust SOPs, I'm sure not all SAR crewmen start off with hundreds of winches in their logbooks, to have a capability if required, and thats at the centre of what I'm saying, its the ability of a Police/HEMS unit to carry out winching when one of the few coastal SAR units is tied up. It has been shown that its better to have a capability and not use it then to be left looking on helplessly because the closest aircraft with a winch is unavailable.

[tecpilot]

Wow, i have learned now, that the "most" police/AA pilots in UK have hoist experiences. Seems the UK mil forces train nearly all pilots in hoisting. What a difference to other armies.
In this case there will be no problem to meet the 500h PIC in HHO operations as needed by OPS3. :ok: onshore
As mentioned by Crab there is a need for a crew and i'm sure the usual observer/paramedic is ready to take his harness.

[[email protected]]

Minself - all RAF SAR rearcrew will have undergone an extensive winching course at SARTU at RAF Valley and then completed the 6-month Sea King OCU which includes a fair amount of winching. Then, when they get to their SAR flights they, are mentored by an experienced flight training officer (Tcat) and a QHCI training officer. That is a lot of training and supervision.

I agree it is better to have the capability and not use it; but to have it and use it unwisely or poorly and cause more injury through inexperience is worse.

Proper training and current practice = no problem;

tick in the logbook and no practice = accident waiting to happen.

[MightyGem]

that a large majority of Police pilots (and I would think AA pilots, but I'm not sure on that score), are ex military pilots and will most likely have a deal of winching / SAR experience.
Not quite. Figures, as of 18 months ago, showed 49 ex AAC, 11 ex RAF, 25 ex RN and 9 ex RM(with 22 non mil "civilian") Police pilots. Probably 99% of the Army guys will have no winching experience. SO, at the most you're probably looking at a max of 1 in 3 Police pilots with some sort of winching experience.

[What Limits]

I can't believe that there would be many of the 1 in 3 likely to have 500 hrs PIC in HHO. Perhaps that why most of the HHO in Europe is done outside of JAR-OPS 3.

[CareBear]

Mighty,
I stand corrected - didn't realise the green jobs had made such an influx into the police role in the last few years - thought it was mainly light and dark blue types !!:ouch:

[handysnaks]

Carebear, we're not capable of a real job.....oh, alright. I'm not capable of a real job (now, if I add a winking smiley here, will it look like I'm being sardonic, unassuming, overconfident or just drunk cos I've had 3 pints of ESB after a very good CRM course?)

[jivusajob]

Crab said

If there is one area that could be transferred from SAR to AA, it is medevacs - these are time consuming and often tedious patient transfers that do not need a military aircraft and crew with a winch to complete. Get AA 24/7 operationally and give them all the medevacs and your precious SAR asset will be far more available for the job it is designed for.
(What picking up fast jet ejectees:p )


Sorry mate, north of the border (where AA is 24/7 and Gov funded) they have to operate under public transport rules when doing patient tansfers. Therefore, not uncommon for MOD ac to be called to carry out the job at night because wx below limits for public transport. 1500ft cloudbase. :uhoh:

Winching is hovering. Really not that hard, stop making such a big deal out of it.

[[email protected]]

jivusajob - sadly the firghtened teenagers in their aluminium death tubes don't bang out half as often as they used to so we have to make do with rescuing joe public from all sorts of silly places.

Public transport can't fly if the cloudbase is below 1500' at night ? shock horror!! Or do you mean those without an IR and a suitably equipped machine. It would make the MCA SAR job difficult otherwise.

Yup - winching is hovering.....only really, really good hovering:)

[jivusajob]

No I mean a suitably equipped SPIFR machine with a suitably qualified single pilot instrument rated pilot. The 1500' cloudbase rule means that if you can't go IMC due to the temp, MOD have to pick it up if the cloubase is below 1500'

Quess the difference is that MCA have 2 pilots or maybe some exemptions. Don't know not MCA

[[email protected]]

So actually it's an icing issue because you don't have an icing clearance on your machines? If there was no icing then you could do an IMC transfer even with a low cloudbase?

[cyclic]

Crab, even you know the answer to this one :=

You cannot fly below MEA in IMC. Therefore, if you are surrounded by mountains and the MEA is 5000' and the freezing level is 1000' it doesn't take a great deal of working out that the ambulance will be unlikely to do this tasking. That's when SAR is used to carry out transfers and why not.

Now, the icing clearance for the Sea King is pretty awful as well if we are honest and the guys and gals do very few IMC transits in true icing conditions. They don't have to as they have got goggles and can go low level through the hills. Goggles will come to the AAs, it is just a matter of time.

[tecpilot]

May be we are going off-topic, sure the goggle will come, but in the moment there are no questions in Europe, in case of a future use of this equipment the weather limitations according to OPS 3 will stay to prevent dangerous situations in case of a goggle failure. Goggles should improve the safety not reduce weather limitation. In the described situation you have to climb to your MEA and request an IFR pickup. If you could not fly IFR as a backup way(helicopter, pilot) you could not start this mission.

[cyclic]

If the cloudbase is 3000' in the mountains then the tops are in cloud. It would be perfectly safe to fly known routes at say 1500' using the goggles to assist. I am not suggesting that SPIFR would be down in the weeds on NVG. It would mean that a lot more transits could be safely conducted at night. Some nights the weather is good but due to the need to be at some considerable MEA to get across the hills the transfers are done by the military. One question never asked is what would happen on a patient transfer being conducted to military limits and there was an accident? These are transfers not rescues and an engine failure then reject lifting from a helipad is rarely practiced by the military and helipad approaches and departures are pretty much at the captain's discretion. Sorry, way off topic!

[tecpilot]

Finding your trail through the mountains absolute safe in VFR sounds good. But in case of a goggle failure right between the mountains you are lost with deep clouds. I remember me to an accident in the same situation, HEMS flight at night in mountain area and the crew tried to find her trail by using a GPS. Suddenly they catched some trees...

[ShyTorque]

Just a question here; are the UK military now flying single front seat occupant flights on NVG? And what about the normal crew complement of an Air Ambulance heli? BTW, possibly the most dangerous thing to do on NVGs is to try to use them to push the "visual" night weather limits.

Back to the core subject, for those seemingly to consider this as only a matter of the experience and competence of the pilot up front. Make no mistake, it most certainly DOES need to be matched by that of both the winch op and the person going on the wire. Especially so if the person to be winched up is on a stretcher.

[cyclic]

Yep, we can all find reasons not to do something. If properly organised and trained, there is no reason why AA can't use goggles in controlled circumstances.

In terms of rearcrew, a recent contract trained all their own winchmen from scratch and have been extremely successful. These winchmen will go on to be winch operators in good time. It is not impossible, it just has to be done properly.

[ShyTorque]

Cyclic,

I'm not sure if your last answer was aimed at me because I said nothing about finding a reason not to do anything.

I take it you do have considerable winching and NVG experience yourself?

[cyclic]

Not aimed at anyone specifically, I was just commenting that we must all keep receptive to new ideas and change.

Yep, I do have considerable winching and NVG time both over the sea and in the mountains. I've also done it for both the military and commercial operators.

[ShyTorque]

OK, I've done a bit too. As an ex mil and ex-civilian NVG instructor and ex-SAR pilot, I'm as receptive to new ideas as anyone, (hence my quite varied career). From later in life, whilst flying as a police pilot, I can recall quite a few times when either, or both would have been very nice to have.

However, I stand by what I said in the post before your last.

There are obviously other factors to consider. The training bill would be quite considerable, depending on what level of competence might be expected and mandated.

In UK we really do need a properly "joined up" organisation for civil emergency services helicoptering (a civil air wing), especially if RAF SAR is to be run down even more (I'm not an advocate of that, btw). Without it and without proper funding, any real progress will be very difficult.

[[email protected]]

Cyclic - nobody mentioned mountains or safety alt - just a 1500' cloudbase (and that wasn't specified as agl/asl or amsl). In your example a Sea King certainly wouldn't do the IMC transit either. I was questioning the statement about not being able to fly with a cloudbase below 1500' at night and I think Jivusajob forgot to add some specifics to his post.
Not sure how we got on to goggles but the AA will get them eventually and be able to operate at night - which is a good thing - but again there will be a training burden to achieve and maintain competency. In this case, all but a very few ex mil will be ahead of the game and the almost instant level of expertees will be very good for safety.
No one said that rearcrew can't be trained - it is the amount and cost of the training that will be difficult for AAs to absorb.
As for your question about accidents - the same questions would be asked whether it was AA or SAR - the fact that we don't have to operate to Cat A is irrelevant, we have our rules and you have yours, nothing is 100% guaranteed safe.
Shy - can't speak for the SH force but SAR is always 2 pilot for NVG. Thoroughly agree re joined up assets, especially in terms of command and control. Seems to work OK in Scotland so why not the rest of the UK.

[cyclic]

The training burden for overland recoveries (not rescues) wouldn't be too great but that's for the accountants.

My point that the AA is operating Class One (JAR) in and out of helipads is relevant. When was the last time you practiced a rejected helipad? The safest place to go is back onto the helipad, yet the military don't have a laid down procedure for obstructed helipads. Some of the towering take-offs I've seen from helipads in congested areas would definitely result in an accident should an engine fail at the wrong time. This is considered an acceptable risk and everything is done to minimise that risk, yet if the military would take a little from their commercial colleagues the situation could be different.

Before I left, I had a go at a Class 1 helipad in the Sea King. It works and those that I showed couldn't believe that we weren't doing it.

Our rules for flight over land at night are 1000' above terrain/obstacles within 20 miles of track. Different over high ground of course.

[[email protected]]

Cyclic, one problem is that we don't have the graphs required to calculate CDPs etc for perf A ops, so even if we wanted to do it, no-one would pay the money for Westlands/Qinetic to provide the data.
Secondly, for most of our rescues, the towering take off from the hospital site is done after the casualty has been off-loaded so only mil personnel are on the aircraft (acceptable risk).
Thirdly, the vertical reject is covered during basic and advanced confined area training at Shawbury and we regularly do an advanced single engine training package in the aircraft with both vertical rejects and flyaways practised. How many AA trg setups actually pull an engine and droop the Nr to minimum to practise these profiles?
So you flew a Class 1 helipad profile in a Sea King - using what performance data and when did you pull the engine? If you mean you reversed up and back to 150' or similar then you are ignoring the increased exposure time in your risk analysis - the quicker you get SSE the better.

[MINself]

Okay the military don't have the same regs but on your "secondly" the thinking behind Group A peformance covers not just those in the aircraft but those on the ground around the landing site too.

SSE and what it implies should not just be an airspeed, it should be the profile you use to get there and the options you then have in the event of it all going wrong :eek:

[cyclic]

OK, you're right it will never get paid for now. Hopefully, in 2012 we will all be working to the same parameters.

The "acceptable risk" is not acceptable if you crash into property or people.

The Sea King advanced single engine profile is generally practiced once per year on re-cat. It involves, as you say, a droop of Nr to the fly away or a running landing reject generally to a very large piece of concrete or tarmac. It doesn't involve a vertical helipad profile.

The AAs do pull an engine during reject profiles and are practiced every 6 months. In the Bolkow this involves actually throttling back one engine to flight idle and in the EC135 the training idle switch is used which is very realistic. As for the 902 and 109 I couldn't comment. The EC135 also has a vertical helipad profile.

I flew a simulated profile worked out on best judgement. I didn't pull an engine, just reduced torques accordingly as per all simulated fly aways. Exposure time doesn't matter if the aircraft can always be landed safely or flown away anywhere during the profile. Better to take a little extra time amd make sure that the profile can be safely flown then rush to get towards SSE. If exposure time was everything then we would have no need for Class One profiles.

[Trolleys]

Refering back to some earlier posts, in an ideal world we would all have all the equipment and all the training we really need. Obviously funding prevents this.

From my own experiences there have been plenty of occasions when I have been grateful for the ability to perform night HEMS, but only one where a winch would have been handy. In these days of limited funding, prioritisation is essential and I would strongly advocate sorting out a night capability before messing around with winches on Air Ambulances.

On the odd occassion a winch would be useful we have to just accept the delay in getting the guys who are equiped and trained to do it. This delay could of course be reduced by an appropriate and co-ordinated tasking policy for all emergency services aircraft.

On the subject of the Met Air Support Unit I beleive it's more of a chicken end egg question. Was there an actual requirement for winch fitted EC145s or was it more of "Blimey, I can't beleive they've actually found the £15 million! We'd better think of a way of using them now!". ;)

Either way, they have the kit now and are certainly in the best position of any police unit to force a decision from the regulators. Good luck to them - it could be of benefit to us all in the long run.

[[email protected]]

Cylic - you are working on old info, since the advent of flight QHIs 3 years ago the adv SE package is practised far more frequently than once a year and the very first part of the sequence is a failure from the hover, first from 10' and then 15'. Now whilst that's not a 75' vertical reject it is still a vertical profile and allows you to point out that in a high vertical reject, you will need to lower the lever to contain enough Nr to cushion the touchdown.

If the towering take off is done correctly, you only transition when you have sufficient height/space to dive on speed for SSE - before that you take the vertical reject option. I'm not saying every mil pilot flys it correctly but most I have done cats on certainly do. The only difference between what we do and a perf A departure is that we don't maintain sight of the LS by moving backwards (thats what markers are for) and we don't have a pre-calculated figure for our cdp, it is done on best judgement just like your simulated Class one helipad departure.
Trolley, thanks for getting the thread back on track, I think you have put the issue of winches into the correct perspective.

[NVIS]

Shy - I know of a number of AAC units flying solo NVG/IF (mostly Gazelle). However the regs are v. restrictive regarding where and the training/experience bill is also high.

[Bertie Thruster]

OK, My post No 30 on this thread was not entirely serious!

In 6 years UK HEMS I've never needed a winch in over 3120 call outs.
(In 10 years RAFSAR I only had 234 callouts. Winched on most of those, correction, hovered* while winchop and winchman winched!)


*Had 70kts IAS on one of those! Is that "hovering"?

[Flaxton Flyer]

OK, My post No 30 on this thread was not entirely serious!

In 6 years UK HEMS I've never needed a winch in over 3120 call outs.


Hardly surprising given that you operate in a county without any hills..;)

Out of interest, have you ever had to call SAR out to winch on any of those call outs?

[Gaspode the Dog]

Rules and regs can be changed even by the CAA, so it is not inconceivable for a set of non-passenger HEMS/Police rules to be introduced that allow the use of winches and NVG. The problem that operator will have, is that they will need a training organisation to support these new skills. You cannot just employ suitable qualified ex-mil pilots. This will cost money and this extra cost will need to come from the operator? or central government. Also there will need to be some central form of checking and regulation of skills. A nice idea but with all the AA trusts and Chief Police considering that they 'own' their particular aircraft, a huge amount of give and take will be needed by those involved----a bridge too far perhaps??:eek:

[Bertie Thruster]

Hardly surprising given that you operate in a county without any hills..;)
Out of interest, have you ever had to call SAR out to winch on any of those call outs?

Sorry for the delay in replying Flaxton............


You are correct; no hills down here! But not always flat....................
http://i70.photobucket.com/albums/i97/nmhsu/BRASSINGTONRESCUE-1.jpg

http://i70.photobucket.com/albums/i97/nmhsu/MRTKINDER-1.jpg

http://i70.photobucket.com/albums/i97/nmhsu/100_0338-1.jpg


As for winching, FB is generally on hand.
http://i70.photobucket.com/albums/i97/nmhsu/P1010015.jpg


We like to shut down so we can all get out and help!
http://i70.photobucket.com/albums/i97/nmhsu/P1010011.jpg


Possibly could have had the RAF for this one but we are so tiny there's generally somewhere to park......
http://i70.photobucket.com/albums/i97/nmhsu/GRIMSBYDOCKS4.jpg

[Kevin Means]

All...

I was doing some research on hoist training and came across this website and thread, which I found very interesting. I noticed that most (if not all) postings were from the UK, or at least from across the pond. I would agree that we in the US have some different methods and philosophies about airborne law enforcement work (including SAR) but I think the primary issue is training for the missions you perform. The decision on whether or not an agency needs to perform a specific type of mission really depends on that agency's tasking, and/or the availability of other resources.

If we take a look at hurricane Katrina, it's pretty clear that the hoist-equipped aircraft were the ones that saved lives. Those aircrews were far more effective at rescuing people than the aircrews who did not have hoists. When I spoke with the Louisianny State Police pilots, their biggest dissapointment was that they did not have hoist-equipped helicopters, and they were limited to flying around and looking for victims who could only be rescued by aircrews that had hoists. Thousands of hoist missions were conducted and to my knowledge, there was not a single hoist-related incident or accident.

As a SAR wetcrewman and hoist operator in the Navy (25 years ago) I learned the value of hoist operations. When I joined the police department and started flying light helicopters (18 years ago) our SAR work was limited to one-skid landings and other relatively high-risk techniques. They always scared the heck out of me - but they were the only game in town. The smart folks (and fortunately we have several of them) turned the missions down.

We just replaced all of our aircraft with AS350 B3s equipped with a hoist. A hoist does require significant initial training and consistent recurrent training, but hoists enable SAR crews to expand their mission capabilities. It makes little or no sense to me to have a 2.5 million dollar aircraft, which was designed to assist officers and to enhance public safety, to be flying around in circles watching someone drown without the ability to save them. (This actually happened to us.)

Yes, it takes significant initial training and consistent recurrent training to remain proficient at hoist operations, but that's the case with every piece of equipment in the aircraft. In my experience, most airborne law enforcement units in the US don't have hoists because their aircraft are operating at or near their max gross weight with all the police equipment. But as they replace those aircraft, many agencies (like us) are acquiring more powerful aircraft, and many are acquiring hoists.

I love this website!

Regards

Kevin Means
Training Officer, San Diego Police Air Support Unit

[Thomas coupling]

Hi kevin and welcome.

UK police operate under different rules to you. We are NOT SAR capable neither are we encouraged/expected to go out and save lives. We do - by accident but that is the only exemption. Anything on a national level would be run by the Military.
Civvy operators (od which we are one) operating under 'commercial' legislation can only operate under their own remit and not 'stray' outside their field of expertise.

Plus we don't get many hurricanes :uhoh:

[PANews]

Plus we don't get many hurricanes...

Yet, TC, yet! The weather is changing they say... we may be getting hot n hi in December yet!

Going back a few posts to that comment on the Met getting a hoist. No inside line here, but I got the impression that the attitude was that the craft could carry it so get it and [as the cost was relatively small] try out the methods rather than just talk about them.... same with the rappelling gear.

It is possible that the pressure came from the firearms boys... brilliant idea :ugh: moving them out of Lippitts Hill where they were alongside the ASU and plonking them in a different county also outside London, badly served by roads and twice as far as they were from the centre of the Capital.

So now to get a team airlifted in they have to send the helicopter that is 14 miles from the centre out to the south east about [I guess] 20 miles to bring them back West ... Yes well thought out that one.

Last time they went down this winching road in 1980 they had a single winch for the Bell 222's but took it off the day after the unit launch put it in the store [until they had time to consider its worth] where it stayed until the 355s arrived. I guess it went to Portugal with the 222s!

[Night Watchman]

Anything on a national level would be run by the Military.


Not necessarily, the UK Coastguard is civilian and handles all maritime incidents. It's also worth remembering that the UK CG helo's have been winching since 1967 so the military are not the only ones to have expertise in winching. The dual hoist fit was pioneered by Bristow Helicopters at the requested of the UK Coastguard for example.

[Flaxton Flyer]

Bertie - nice photos! I take it back about the hills. Are the hilly pics in the "Notts" part of Lincs / Notts?

[Bertie Thruster]

Bertie - nice photos! I take it back about the hills. Are the hilly pics in the "Notts" part of Lincs / Notts?

They are in the Derbyshire part of Notts!! With a control covering Lincs/Notts Derbys/Leics, there's bound to be a bit of mutual support!

[TorqueOfTheDevil]

Please bear this in mind when reading my post:

1. The casualty deserves to be sent the most appropriate asset without delay

2. At present, this doesn't always happen

This issue has provoked a lot of discussion, not all of it well-informed...

SAR winch because they can't land


SAR can and frequently do land to perform rescues, as it avoids the risks inherent in winching, but unlike AAs, SAR can still carry out the rescue expeditiously if the terrain proves unsuitable for landing. But back to the original question...

On this thread, there has been a lot of willy-waving between the respective proponents of SAR and Air Ambulances, but little mention of providing a good service to the person who needs it ie the casualty. Perhaps Crab's original concern was that, should AAs be fitted with winches, they (or their controllers) will try to muscle in on rescue situations even more than they already do (sorry but it's true!), rather than sticking to high-speed taxi jobs to which they are eminently suited (and much better suited, I must say, than wheezing Sea Kings/S61s). Whatever some of the AA proponents have said on this thread, there are countless cases of AA crews wading in to rescue situations when frankly they should steer clear and let a dedicated SAR helicopter do its work.

I may seem to be contradicting myself in the above paragraph (ie if an AA is winch-equipped, why shouldn't it do rescues), but my point is this: even without winches, AA crews are frequently guilty of pressing on with a rescue when it would be more sensible - and, crucially, better for the casualty - to admit defeat and stand aside for a SAR aircraft...if AAs do get winches, they will become even less willing to stand back when the situation is beyond their capability. Even if an AA does get a winch, the winch will not offer the speed, load-lifting ability, or cable length of a full-size SAR helo (and how about the issue of cabin space/casualty accessibility?). The SAR aircraft are also trained and equipped for ops in worse weather than AAs (not to mention night work) - so is it sensible to suggest that AA crews tackle full-blown rescues with their limited winching facility, when a SAR helo would be better placed? As I said, in my experience, too often an AA attempts to deal with a SAR situation, and ends up either coping by using MRT/Coastguards to carry the cas over tricky terrain to the aircraft, or getting stuck and only then requesting a SAR aircraft, which then creates a further delay for the casualty while said SAR aircraft is scrambled. Neither of these scenarios benefits the casualty (or the stretcher-bearers!).

There may well be some caustic reaction to my comments, but the bottom line is this: the casualty's needs are the top priority, so it's important to get the best asset dispatched without delay. Why create more room for confusion and delay by adding a limited winching facility to an Air Ambulance? There are plenty of well-equipped SAR helicopters at numerous bases around the UK already; there are also plenty of non-winch-capable AAs around the country, and both 'fleets' get plenty of trade in their specialities. Why not simply concentrate our efforts on the education of those who need to know about what each asset can offer, rather than trying to confuse the issue by blurring the boundaries further?

[Brilliant Stuff]

Well put. Casualty first, politics and empire building last.

[ShyTorque]

I understand that UK CAA regs require air ambulances to operate under Class A performance requirements at all times. There has been some discussion about this wrt helipad operations.

However, how would AAs be placed in this respect whilst actually winching? Presumably single engine hover would be required. As I understand it, this isn't possible with the aircraft being used.

[tbc]

I have been involved in Air Ambulance (HEMS) works for some 9 years and continue to do so. In that time I have yet to see or hear of the "countless cases of AA crews wading in to rescue situations when frankly they should steer clear and let a dedicated SAR helicopter do its work."
I do recall the GNAA rescuing the trapped driver from his car in the North East and I believe the crew acted because the on-scene experts advised that the driver needed rescuing immediately and there was no time to lose.
I do also recall tasks where a coastal rescue was carried out by the coastguard/beach rescue etc. and the casualty was then transported to hospital by the HEMS aircraft. The cases in mind were all done in less than the deployment time frame of the nearest SAR aircraft I would suggest.
or when
"AA crews are frequently guilty of pressing on with a rescue when it would be more sensible - and, crucially, better for the casualty - to admit defeat and stand aside for a SAR aircraft..." I do hope you don't mean wait and hope the casualty doesn't die before the SAR gets there!!
I don't know too much about SAR and using them for HEMS or Air Ambulance work but I believe it could be something to do with location and reaction times (availability) as well as costs.
Now, I do foresee that in times to come the emergency services helicopters will become better equipped to carry out more 'rescuing' type of work particulary on-shore but possibly rivers, lakes, and near shore.
Like has been said, it's the casualty that comes first.
I will now withdraw quietly from this one and let the willy waving begin.

Oh yes - not all HEMS aircraft go to bed when it gets dark.

[Bertie Thruster]

there are countless cases of AA crews wading in to rescue situations when frankly they should steer clear and let a dedicated SAR helicopter do its work.

Presumably not in the UK? I've only ever heard of one reported example of a UK HEMS cab operating in what might be termed a "rescue situation"

Unless you count our one 2 years ago. (Car and unconscious occupant sinking in a river)

(Just previewed this to see that tbc has beaten me to it, so I suppose this counts as a willy wave!)

[Flaxton Flyer]

Shy Torque -

"During HHO, the helicopter must be capable of sustaining a critical power unit failure with the remaining engine(s) at the appropriate power setting, without hazard to the suspended person(s)/cargo, third parties, or property. (Except for HEMS HHO at a HEMS operating site where the requirement need not be applied)"

Training is a different matter, in this case no exemptions are currently available.

FF

[teeteringhead]

Training is a different matter, in this case no exemptions are currently available.
..... hmmmm, so you can do it, but you can't train to do it ..........

...there's sensible then ....:confused:

[Bertie Thruster]

Winch training! Only wimps would need to do that. What could possibly go wrong?




Routine winch training, English Channel, with "interesting" HF antenna!
http://i70.photobucket.com/albums/i97/nmhsu/decktrainingresize.jpg

[JimL]

You should be aware that HEMS performance was discussed in great detail and put to bed on this thread http://www.pprune.org/forums/showthread.php?t=216776.

As was established there:Firstly I would recommend reading the regulations for they contain the answer to the question that you have posed. In particular Appendix 1 to JAR-OPS 3.005(d) paragraph (c)(2) and ACJ to Appendix 1 to JAR-OPS 3.005(d) “The HEMS philosophy”.

In practical terms 212man is correct in his statement that you have to meet the standard performance requirement of JAR-OPS 3 - but, as modified by the Appendix referenced above.

The following is therefore permitted:

If operating over a non-hostile environment operations can be conducted in PC3;

at a hospital in a congested hostile environment (city centre); operations conducted in PC1 except when an approval has been given under the Public Interest Site alleviation - which permits exposure on take-off and landing (a modified PC2 with exposure);

at the accident site; no performance requirement but pilots are expected to minimise exposure;

at the operating base; normal performance requirements apply - i.e. PC1, 2 or 3 as required by JAR-OPS 3.470.

As stated in the ACJ referenced above; the operating base is where the crew and helicopter are stationed and from where most sorties are started and ended. Complications occur when the operating base is in a congested hostile environment and specifically at a hospital; if this is the case then the local NAA will have to rule on what the requirement is. Basically, this situation should not occur as the base should have been risk assessed and located with safety in mind.

However, all are aware that as the HEMS helicopter becomes the trauma team mode of transport (see London HEMS), it becomes economical to base the helicopter at the hospital so that the trauma team can be gainfully employed when HEMS is not in action.Flaxton flyer correctly quotes from Appendix 1 to JAR-OPS 3.005(h) para (d)(1) which establishes that, as with landing at a HEMS Operating Site, there is alleviation from performance requirements when hoisting; but then assumes incorrectly that JAR-OPS 3 contains the same restriction on Hoist Training as is applied by the UK CAA. Hoist training is not regulated by JAR-OPS 3 as it is not considered to be CAT.

I was intrigued by TorqueOfTheDevil's post:the bottom line is this: the casualty's needs are the top priority, so it's important to get the best asset dispatched without delayHaving sensibly applied objective criteria to the issue he then dismisses solutions other than SARWhy create more room for confusion and delay by adding a limited winching facility to an Air Ambulance?Objective criteria is just that - set the objective and not the means of compliance; if the HEMS operator meets all of the requirement of training, qualification and recency, there is no earthly reason why HEMS/HHO should not be Approved and undertaken.

The issue of weather is a red-herring; the HEMS operating minima is set in the HEMS Appendix - there are no additional alleviations for HEMS/HHO.

Jim

[Thomas coupling]

JimL where are the hoist regs laid down then?

Where does it say it is NOT a commercial activity?

Why are the CAA reverting me and other operators to JAR Ops 3 for the HHO regs and quoting they cannot be done during trng without full SSE guarantees?

[cyclic]

Hoist training is not regulated by JAR-OPS 3 as it is not considered to be CAT.

I think you will find it is. All of the UK civil SAR operations work to some form of performance rating when training - the CAA mandate the dispensation in the indemnity that is held by such operators. Whether that is safe OEI ops or some other criteria, the requirement is there. This doesn't prevent training in a modern, powerful aircraft, just makes it safer.

[MINself]

'there are countless cases of AA crews wading in to rescue situations when frankly they should steer clear and let a dedicated SAR helicopter do its work.'

TOTD, Please give us some of these examples so we can all learn from your wealth of experience of UK AA and SAR operations or are you going to just leave these accusations in open forum to try to discredit the UK AA units? :=

Didn't you say that its whats best for the patient? If you think any AA unit is not conducting itself in a manner condusive to this principal then you should make this know to the local ambulance service, who oversee its operations :rolleyes:

'AA crews are frequently guilty of pressing on with a rescue when it would be more sensible - and, crucially, better for the casualty - to admit defeat and stand aside for a SAR aircraft...if AAs do get winches, they will become even less willing to stand back when the situation is beyond their capability.'

TOTD I doubt that your opinion will hold any weight with anyone who knows anything about the UK AA operations which you clearly do NOT. I have the upmost respect for the UK AA charities and the sometimes hazardous tasks they undertake as professionals and they are no less professional than any Mil SAR crew when it comes to recognising their capabilities and when a situation is beyond them.

[Sulley]

Don't want a winch don't need a winch.On the one occaision I have needed one I called some very nice people who already have one ,to come and help ,which they did.

That said there does seem to be a bit of : The answer is military SAR now what's the question on this thread.

Sorry guys,but the answer isn't always call a sea king.There is nothing wrong with the way the AA 's operate at the moment.Sometimes a sea king is just to big,to land or indeed to stop blowing plod's accident investigation evidence all over the countryside !! (yes you can land expeditiously and for the benefit of the patient and still preserve the scene )

[JimL]

Thomas Coupling,

You have to be careful when mixing and matching terminology; my comments were with regard to CAT operations, which ICAO establishes is:Commercial air transport operation. An aircraft operation involving the transport of passengers, cargo or mail for remuneration or hire. To my knowledge (and it has been some time since I was involved) the ANO does not use the term CAT - preferring instead Public Transport. As you also know, there is a lack of a definition of Crew Member; the reason why some activities - considered by ICAO and Europe to be Aerial Work - are regulated as Public Transport in the UK.

The last complication is that there is no legal basis for JAR-OPS 3 in the UK; it is permitted to be used as the basis for regulation of operations as an alternative to the ANO. The CAA is the arbiter of exactly what might be applied (or not applied) based upon its perception of what is safe - in accordance with safety targets and policy in the UK.

It is an entirely justifiable stance to insist that hoist training is performed with engine failure accountability - the whole crew is exposed to an engine failure in training on far more occasions than when operating for real; thus the risk is higher. This is not an issue of regulation but one of Risk Assessment and Risk Reduction.

Cyclic,

SAR is specifically included in the ICAO definition of Aerial WorkAerial work. An aircraft operation in which an aircraft is used for specialized services such as agriculture, construction, photography, surveying, observation and patrol, search and rescue, aerial advertisement, etc.however ICAO does not provide SARPs for Aerial Work and the State must decide under what regulations it permits the operation. It is not regulated under JAR-OPS 3 and, in view of the diverse nature of SAR in European States, when we produced draft regulations for Aerial Work, we specifically recommended that SAR be excluded from JAR-OPS 4 and left to the individual States.

Jim

[sss]

I can understand the current SAR bods not wishing to loose a little of their grip on having a winch fitted.

But lets look at the UK in general,

policing, PCSO's instead of police, council parking attendants instead of traffic wardens, HATO's instead of motorway traffic police.

NHS, minor treatment centres instead of A&E's, single crewed response vehicles instead of double crewed ambulances, volunteer first responders instead of full time crews, charity based air ambulances instead of nationwide NHS paid for coverage

fire brigades, more retainers instead of full time crews.

it seems its the way of the UK government to dilute and devolve tasks, so understandable if winches end up becoming an option open to AA/HEMS and police operators.

[Thomas coupling]

JimL: Were you from DAP in the past? [Jar 4 etc?].

Commercial Air Transport is defined in the SES Common Requirements as:

“any aircraft operation involving the transport of passengers, cargo or mail for remuneration or hire.

Under (UK) Air Law:

In the UK, the term 'public transport' is used instead of 'commercial air transport', and 'public transport' is defined in Article 130(2) of the Air Navigation Order (the 'ANO') as any flight where:
'(a) ... valuable consideration is given or promised for the carriage of passengers or cargo in the aircraft on that flight';
or, subject to minor exceptions, where
'(b) ... any passengers or cargo are carried gratuitously in the aircraft on that flight by an air transport undertaking ...'.

They are one and the same thing therefore.

Secondly:

The CAA have elected in this instance to fall back on JAR Ops 3 for the regulations governing HHO.

I question your stance then:

Quote: Hoist training is not regulated by JAR-OPS 3 as it is not considered to be CAT. Unquote.

It is.....and......it is:rolleyes:

That is why we can't winch in the police / AA role...the a/c we choose to fly (EC145 thru to AS355) can't train safely with passengers on board due to the lack of a SSE capability. QED.:ok:

[JimL]

Thomas,

It was not my aim to promote HHO by the HEMS community, merely to point out the intent of the regulation. Draft JAR-OPS 4 was written by the operational committees of the JAA - not the DAP or the CAA.

JAR-OPS 3 regulates only in the area of CAT; HHO training is not within the designation of CAT because it does not involve the "transport of passengers, cargo or mail for remuneration or hire".

If a State decides that hoist training has to meet the requirements of Appendix 1 to JAR-OPS 3.005(h) it ipso facto does not mean it is CAT - it just means that it has been decided that this text is appropriate for this mode of operations.

I think you are being a little harsh on the small twins - those which are used for hoisting (and I can think of a number) are quite capable of meeting HEC Class D 'performance' at an operational mass (not necessarily at the MCTOM).

Jim

[Thomas coupling]

Copied all that Jim. I think we are clear then:

The CAA have chosen 3.005(h) as their bench mark for emergency services helicopters in the UK.
And perhaps I should have been more specific re the SSE configuration in that this is rarely achievable because the helicopters APS is too high to start with never mind adding passengers and crew on top!

:ok:

[TorqueOfTheDevil]

Although this may well be willy-waving, I am responding to a direct challenge...

Please give us some of these examples


Before I start, I hope it's obvious from my earlier post that I have nothing but respect and admiration for a person or outfit of any variety who tries to help in an immediate life-or-death situation, especially if they are not ideally equipped to render assistance. The point of my post, as I hoped was clear, was that the casualty should come first - and in a really critical situation, any help is better than none.


I do hope you don't mean wait and hope the casualty doesn't die before the SAR gets there!!



No, I don't mean that at all. My grumble is that, in non-life or death situations (which are the vast majority), the casualty is either put at risk, or has their recovery delayed, by an inappropriate asset being sent and not coping (or not coping well). And yes, there can be a delay waiting for a SAR aircraft to arrive - which is why it's important, in a rescue situation, for the rescue aircraft to be tasked asap, rather than waiting for another asset to have a go and only then realize it's beyond them and belatedly call for SAR or another more suitable asset. And no, it's not necessarily the AA crews' fault - the people who call them instead of SAR are often the root cause.

Anyway, here goes:

January 7th this year, Cullernose Point, Northumberland (2 miles north of Boulmer). Climber falls from the cliff, suffering spinal injuries. Boulmer Sea King is 30 mins away, returning from Aberdeen after a previous rescue. SK is informed of the Air Amb en route to Cullernose Point, then Humber CG ask SK how far away they are, and are duly tasked to the incident as well. When less than 10 mins away, the SK is stood down and told to avoid the scene as "the Air Amb has the situation under control". Fair enough (if true), though the SK has to continue towards the scene, as its base is two miles beyond. The SK gives the area a suitable berth, and passes half a mile out to sea; within seconds of the aircraft coming into line of sight of the group on the rocky beach, one of the on-scene coastguards radios "Rescue 131 can you help us, we need your winch". Seems that the only people on scene who thought the AA had the situation under control were the AA crew...had they pressed on with recovering this casualty, the CG would have had to carry the man, in a stretcher, over 150 yards of large wet boulders to where the AA had landed. Can anyone explain to me how this is better for the casualty (never mind the stretcher-bearers) than waiting for the SK which was known to be less than 10 mins away? Besides, with the AA and a road ambulance attending, a large part of Northumberland was denuded of ambulance cover (spread pretty thin in rural areas), while these assets were trying but failing to resolve a situation which the SK could have dealt with on its own.

May 22nd 2005, near Loch Rannoch, canoeist trapped against rocks in the middle of a river, partly underwater. Police, Fire, AA all on scene. A doctor on-scene pronounces death, and an SK is eventually tasked to do a body recovery. When it arrives, what should it find but two people (believed to be the AA crew), on a fireman's ladder laid between the bank and the mid-river rocks, ropes round their waists, crawling out to where the canoe is, trying but failing to extricate the unfortunate occupant. The SK duly deploys the winchman, recovers the canoeist, and takes him to Fort William, where hospital staff continue the crew's attempts to resuscitate him for a further hour before pronouncing death. If there was any chance of the canoeist being alive, why wasn't the SK called sooner? And if those on scene believed the man was dead, why these 'heroics' when a means of recovering the body safely was finally on its way?

July 31st 2004, River Ericht Gorge near Blairgowrie. Fisherman has sustained severe head injuries falling onto rocks on the narrow riverbank at the foot of a 350' gorge. Air Amb is sent, along with various cliff rescue teams, and a Sea King is also dispatched. As the SK is entering the area, it is turned back, on the advice of those already present (ie including the AA crew) that the situation is not suitable for winching; the preferred option is to raise the casualty out of the gorge on ropes, then move him to hospital in the AA. As the SK is so close, it continues so the crew can assess the scene for themselves. Long story short: SK deploys winchman, recovers him plus cas and departs for Dundee in a fraction of the time it would have taken to carry out Plan A. The fact the the casualty died later is unfortunate but irrelevant - the point being that a slightly less critical casualty might have survived the quick winch and transfer, but not a rope raise up 350' before being moved by AA. On this occasion, the erroneous decision to turn the SK back was based on several agencies' total lack of knowledge about what a winch-equipped helicopter can (and can't) do. Tut tut!

Do the three cases mentioned above, spread over nearly three years, constitute 'countless cases'? No of course not, but these are three which I know of and could find details of easily (and details are important, as I'd hate to be accused of not knowing anything about UK AA operations...!). I have heard of several other cases (eg ski mountaineer with broken leg in northern Cairngorms but far from ski slopes, SK given task once AA crew had tried but failed to reach casualty by walking through deep snow over steep ground), and that is just in the part of the country I have worked in, and on days I've been in work. But if you extrapolate my limited knowledge to cover the whole country on every day over the last three years, you would end up with countless cases. No rescue outfit is always beyond reproach, including SAR, and all I'm doing is highlighting what I feel is a worrying trend - I reckon we'd all (including casualties) be better off perfecting our respective niches rather than trying to branch out into other people's field. I could go on, but my willy is getting tired of all this vigorous waving...

[TorqueOfTheDevil]

Oh, and by the way...


If you think any AA unit is not conducting itself in a manner condusive (sic) to this principal (sic) then you should make this know (sic) to the local ambulance service, who oversee its operations :rolleyes:



Been done numerous times, yet nothing seems to change. Funny that.

[Flaxton Flyer]

JimL posted :

JAR-OPS 3 regulates only in the area of CAT; HHO training is not within the designation of CAT because it does not involve the "transport of passengers, cargo or mail for remuneration or hire".

Are you sure about that Jim? Consider the case of Air Ambulance "X" who lease their heli from PAS (for example). ALL flying is done on PAS' AOC using PAS pilots, and every hour flown - including training the paramedics how to winch - is paid for by the AA.

PAS receive money = remuneration = CAT.

Or am I missing something?

[JimL]

Flaxton,

I am not interested in this becoming a hypothetical discussion where we construct suitable cases to suit our purposes.

This is training with Crew Members (as defined in JAR-OPS 3.988) - it is not CAT. Under your hypothesis all proficiency tests could be CAT as could Air Tests with Engineers on board. Under the auspices of JAR-OPS and ICAO Annex 6, there are no passengers on board - they are all Crew Members.

Jim