Rescue helo operators fight NZ CAA

[Te_Kahu]

From today's Dominion Post newspaper in Wellington. The singles in question are generally two AS350BA, one AS350B2 & one A119. The twin is a BK117B2 operated VFR.

Recue helicopter operators are fighting an industry crackdown that will ban them flying some patients directly to major hospitals.
The operators have warned the move could potentially cost the health service millions of dollars, put added strain on already struggling ambulance services and delay treatment for patients.
Single-engined aircraft which covers most of the rescue helicopters landing in Wellington are already officially banned from landing in built-up areas unless it is a life or death emergency.
But the Civil Aviation Authority says some operators have been flouting the life or death clause, potentially endangering people living near hospitals. It has held a meeting with rescue helicopter operators, who have been asked to come up with proof they are operating within the law.
In Wellington, operators from Palmerston North, Hastings, New Plymouth and Nelson would be unable to land on the hospital's rooftop pad, with Wellington-based Westpac rescue helicopter the only service that flies a twin-engine craft in the area. Wellington Hospital gets between 50 and 80 flights a week. While at least half are emergency flights, it is believed a large proportion of the rest are routine transfers.
Operators have labelled the move "ridiculous" and say single-engine helicopters are safe. "We wouldn't use the helicopter or the aircraft if it wasn't safe, full stop," said Nelson Marlborough Rescue Helicopter Trust pilot Tim Douglas-Clifford. "It doesn't make much difference to the operator but it makes a big difference to the patient."
It would mean more work for ambulance services, which would be used to pick up patients from airports or approved landing spots. The alternative upgrading to twin-engine craft, which can land in congested areas would cost about $2 million for each helicopter. That pricetag would have to be picked up by the health system and donations.
Civil Aviation rules state single-engine helicopters cannot land in a built-up area in case the engine fails and they injure people on the ground. Any life-threatening case is exempt from the rule.
Helilink chief pilot Alan Deal said the industry had to work with the CAA to solve the problem. "It will have a huge effect on the industry, there's no doubt about that. It will mean that we have to find places to land, like airfields for instance, and that will create a huge ambulance logistics problem."
CAA's rotary wing unit manager, John Fogden, said operators had been using the life-threatening clause when they should not be to land at hospitals.
The CAA called a meeting at Wellington Hospital before Christmas to inform local operators they would need to prove they were following the rules.
Newtown Residents Association vice-president Martin Hanley said noise from helicopters landing at the hospital had been discussed by the association, but it was more important the service continued to help people.
"We'd like them to operate safely because we're underneath them, but we'd also like them to continue saving lives."
Westpac rescue helicopter spokesman Dave Greenberg said he thought CAA had been very reasonable.
"If CAA did nothing and turned a blind eye and then a helicopter crashes near the hospital the first thing anyone would be doing is saying to CAA `why didn't you enforce the rules?'," he said.

[Te_Kahu]

Nope. You?

[BigMike]

Wasn't the Wellington Hospital helipad originally built by the late Peter Button and his son? (For non Kiwi's pilot Peter Button was the force behind the establishment of a rescue service in Wellington many years ago) Who began using it with a Jetranger...

Note: by 'built' I mean the guy hired a concrete mixer and constructed it himself.

From Westpac Rescue History:

"Rescue Helicopter history: 1975
Pioneer helicopter pilot Peter Button started the first rescue helicopter in Wellington. Button set up commercial helicopter company Capital Helicopters in 1975, making it available for emergencies.

Rescue Helicopter history: 1981
Button aimed to provide a dedicated rescue helicopter service for Wellington. In 1981, sponsorship by the Commercial Bank of Australia (CBA) meant Capital Helicopter's Bell 206B could be dedicated to rescues.
With the 1982 merger of CBA and Westpac, it became the Wellington Westpac Rescue Helicopter. It was repainted in the now trademark yellow and red."

[Te_Kahu]

Mike. That rings a vague bell. However, the current pad, which has been in use for some years, is on the roof of the main hospital building. A new pad is about to be commissioned a top a new main building. Ironically it is lower than the current pad and on the windward side of it. You will have to come around the old building, or at least approach from the side of it, to get on to the new pad in a Northerly.

Roam. Indeed. It does seem more than a little ironic to me that for all Hugh Jone's huffing and puffing over the years about twin engine ops over built up areas; he provides nothing more than a VFR service to the Life Flight Trust and allows the A119 to operate in and out of there.

My understanding is that the current regs don't require Class 1, but you have to be able to get yourself out of trouble if you lose an engine.

What do you think of the new pad?

TK

[mybighorse1]

Im Guessing this is the rule the CAA are trying to enforce;

CAR Part 139.309 Use of heliports
(a) Except for a person operating a helicopter on an external load
operation, no person operating a helicopter shall use any place within a populous area as a heliport unless the heliport has physical characteristics, obstacle limitation surfaces and visual aids commensurate with the characteristics of the helicopter being operated and the ambient light
conditions during operations, and the person has complied with
paragraph (c).

(c) Before using any place as a heliport, a person operating a helicoptershall ensure that—
(1) the heliport is clear of all persons, animals, vehicles or other
obstructions during the hover, touchdown or lift-off other than
persons and vehicles essential to the operation; and
(2) the selected approach and take off paths are such that, if the
helicopter is not a performance-Class 1 helicopter, an
autorotative landing can be conducted without any undue risk to
any person on the ground;

CAR Part 1; Heliport means any defined area of land or water, and any defined area on a structure, intended or designed to be used either wholly or partly for the landing, departure, and surface movement of helicopters:

Would enforcement of this rule also apply to any city helipad (other than ones that approach over water) - probably including all hospital helipads?

Is BK117 performance Class 1 ensured at all times when landing at their inner city helipads (possibly the S76's in Northland are!!)?

In my feable opinion this is a big can of worms that the CAA will need to follow up all over the country!!!!:eek:

[alouette]

Just amazing what this JAR bull**** causes to helicopter businesses worldwide:yuk:

[JimL]

Alouette,

Perhaps it's just me but I fail to see the connection between this thread and JARs.

Jim

[SASless]

The CAA called a meeting at Wellington Hospital before Christmas to inform local operators they would need to prove they were following the rules.



I have a better idea.....let the CAA prove the operators were violating the rules!

Let the lazy Sod's get off their arses and do something for a change!

It is pretty damn arrogant to make an accusation without any documentation or investigation and then demand the operators to devote time, resources, and money to providing the CAA with the information they should be digging up on their own damn dime.

Let the CAA document their case then come forth with their demand for a response and proposed corrective action by the Industry and individual operators.

I suggest the CAA has its cart before the Horse on this one.

How many single-engined helicopters have crashed while using these heliports?

Have there been any persons on the ground injured or killed?

How many lives have been saved by these operations?

Are you willing to throw the baby out with the bath water here?

Lets carry it to the extreme....doesn't the use of non-class one helicopters during winching or short-hauling rescues endanger the victim and thus should not those rescues not be conducted by those means? After all....a rescue does not always mean life or death situations that could be handled by other means despite being more difficult and prolonged?


JimL,

Does it matter if it is local NZ CAA rules, JAR's, EASA, or a city ordinance that is being used as a basis for this action? The whole attitude of looking for reasons "not to do" something is what gets up people's noses.

What happened to the concept of looking for ways to facilitate operations and perhaps the industry in concert with the bureaucracy examining the current regulations to determine which ones are in need of modification or outright elimination in order to foster improved service, eliminate unnecessary costs and admin burden while at the same time keeping the public safety in mind.

Recall this action stems from an administrative decision and not as a result of an accident, injury, or death.

I would suggest the thread about Licensed/un-licensed airfields serve to point out the sad state the current system has gotten to.

[alouette]

Well, if you fail to see a connection then get this...JAA is quite determined to get rid of single engine helicopters and twins that don't meet their "criteria". The problem in NZ smells a lot like JAR **** to me. If the JAA would have the power they would kick all the single Squirrels, Lamas, etc... into the toilet, and ruin businesses, because twins are "oh so safe". You might not agree with my view, but in my opinion aviation does not get safer but therefore more idiotic.

[2 per rev]

Some operator in NZ may correct me but:

In NZ there has never been an Arriel engine failure (powers the AS350) which are the majority of the EMS machines. This includes some world record single engine flights over water.

There has only been one EMS accident - to a BK117 (twin)

Not all BK 117's are Class 1

[JimL]

Thanks for that alouette.

I had two reasons for making my observation: (1) the language used in the CARs does not reflect that used in JARs - i.e. there is no such thing as a Performance Class 1 helicopter - operations are performed in PC1, 2 or 3; and (2) in Europe there is no central regulation of heliports - they are still within the remit of the States.

For the capability of the BK117, it can be operated in all three classes.

Perhaps you have missed the point that these regulations (and all regulations issued by a Signatory State) have to show compliance with ICAO Annex 14 (heliports) and Annex 6 (operations). Your anger might therefore better be directed at ICAO - from whose SARPs all of these regulations are derived.

I would question SASless' contention that the Authority be required to prove that operations are compliant. It is for the operator to establish an operating regime that is both safe and compliant. To have it any other way would be to require the Authority to (directly) manage the operation.

Clearly, the NZ CAA are not qualified to do this, nor do they have the staff or the budget.

Jim

[alouette]

Ironically, and I have been through JAA exams...these exams aviation law wise are all based on ICAO annexes, and JAA stepped up and just changed the labels. I don't like the JAA or its JARs and its equivalent bs but I have to live with it.

However, this might not be related to NZ CARs but then again the odd determination to put twins into business for any kind does have a JAR influence.

Another question; has the ambulance business been unsafely operating in NZ?

[Te_Kahu]

Alouette: My understanding is that NZ CAA has no issue with singles being used for rescue or inter-hospital transfer work. There are a number of squirrels and a Koala being used for both. What they do have an issue with is this particular pad. Wellington Hospital is in a built up area. It is surrounded on three sides by houses or businesses and the remaining side by rising ground covered in pine trees which has houses on the other side of it. The wind is usually northerly or southerly. Approach and departure for both of these winds is over densely populated or built up streets.

The rules for operating in and out of such pads have remained the same for some time. CAA believes the life or death element of the rules is being exploited by some just because they operate rescue helicopters.

SAS: For once I have some sympathy for our CAA!!! There are have been queries raised with the departmnet about use of this pad and the Director of CAA has said the rules must be obeyed.

There have been 3 or 4 incidents with rescue helicopters in NZ. As well as the BK crash up on the Rimutaka Ranges, there was a BO-105 in Wellington which had a rotor strike leaving a park (or some such) where it had been on static. A squirrel fell into Whangarei Harbour after the line it had on the hook got caught on a fence as it left a park as part on a training exercise.

[SASless]

JimL,

Show me a BK-117 that can be operated at Class One performance with the EMS kit installed, two medical team, one patient, and one pilot, with mission fuel.....can you name one?

I have flown the BK....and when flown with just two pilots and the ems kit....in cold temps we got Class One performance at times....but not in the Summer and never equipped for the mission with the full crew and fuel aboard.

Add in a Neo-Nate Isolator and the extra people that mission required....and never did we have Class One performance.

I for sure agree with your comment about the CAA's not being able to operate a helicopter business......the UK CAA does quite well in meeting it's budget and profit requirement as it has no competition to defend its rates and charges against. In the real world of business the CAA would be bankrupt and out of business with any competition.

Te,

My apologies to the NZ CAA then.....I am used to the UK CAA and the draconian mindset that organization has when it comes to service, costs, and penchant for burdensome rules. Perhaps tarring all "CAA's" with the same brush is unfair.

[JimL]

In a European HEMS configuration, the EC 145 can perform CAT A helipad procedures up to 7000ft at +15C (configuration and data provided in Attachment A of the referenced TGL).

http://www.jaa.nl/secured/Operations/Public%20Documents/TGLs/AGM%20S4%20Ops%20TGL%2043%20HEMS%20Mountain%20Ops%20Feb%2008 %20Print.pdf (http://www.jaa.nl/secured/Operations/Public%20Documents/TGLs/AGM%20S4%20Ops%20TGL%2043%20HEMS%20Mountain%20Ops%20Feb%2008 %20Print.pdf)

Jim

[SASless]

JimL,

I know the EC-145 is very similar to the BK but show me the BK data will you....as your statement cited the BK not the EC-145.

Just as the CAA would expect relevent data to be presented.....so do I.

Just which model of the BK do you refer to....as there is a whale of a difference between the various models.

I would suggest the "A" series BK's are quite different than the "B" series in performance.

The blanket statement that "BK's can be operated Class One" is misleading and not completely accurate.

Category A Helipad procedure tops out at 7,000ft at 15ºC; this could be an issue at that altitude if the HEMS Operating Base does not have adequate space without surrounding obstacles

As I read your reference I also noted the Base had to be a surveyed site and a statement was made where obstacles could present a problem for takeoffs and landings for all of the aircraft listed in the document.

The crewing shown in the document and probably the equipment installed in the aircraft is much different than the standard BK-117 used in EMS operations in the USA.

Perhaps some of the American based EMS guys can give us some weight information for their operations and we can compare it to those cited in the study you reference.

[JimL]

SASless,

The EC145 is a BK117 (and the only one for which I have data);

My introduction of the Cat A Helipad procedure (which is the most limiting) at 7000ft and 15C was to show that it was not gasping for performance (at HEMS operating masses) at sea level in Wellington.

The 'rider' in the text applies to any PC1 procedure - the site must have been 'surveyed' before it be flown because obstacle clearance has to be assured. How else could it be done?

If you check the figures in the table in the attachment, you will see that it has quite a lot to capacity to spare in Wellington; that can be taken in extra HEMS payload (HEMS equipment, the three crew members and casualty are included - as is 45mins fuel and reserves). The payload coming off Wellington is that shown; take-off for Wellington can be plus the fuel burn. I can't imagine that the payload off Wellington will include the casualty (another 98kg)! (Cat A landing masses can be greater than landing masses - I am not sure if this is correct for the BK117/EC145.)

For alouette's benefit; JARs would permit the HEMS aircraft to operate in PC2 if the hospital site was a particularly difficult one with respect to local obstacles, by permitting the Public Interest Site alleviation.

It would appear from a perusal of the NZ CARs that, apart from this one restriction, there are no performance requirements - only the necessity to apply the Rules of The Air (ICAO Annex 2); in that respect there is no correlation with JARs and it therefore falls short of ICAO Annex 6 compliance.

Jim

[SASless]

JimL,

How do these restrictions apply to HEMS operations to downtown London?

I am thinking of photos of aircraft parked in intersections or streets.

As all HEMS flights do not involve life or death situations....is there a problem with doing those operations that do not involve life threatening injuries?

[victor papa]

In our research done for 5500ft, 35 degrees, 2 hrs endurance and 3 crew at 80kg's each with the ALS kit installed and then of course dependant on how long you fly to get to the patient(might be 15 min so you have to include it) an extra 80kgs, the EC145 and A109 Grand barely made Cat A without reaching the 2 hours endurance requirement(135 and a few others way to fuel limited). The Grand did the best with 1.5 hrs max and the 145 1.3 hrs max.

If you want to complicate it further. Neither machine made it in IFR configuration!!!!!:eek: no matter the fuel onboard.

350B3, EC130, 407 and 119 although it's oGE graph makes it dodgy(but no more than the 145/109) made the criteria without compromise. The 130 has the most to spare due to the extra 180kg MAUW over the 350 and we operate her there for the last 2 years and she does it with a smile(no limits recorded). The 130 is fitted with TCAD, EGPWS, Stormscope, EX500, ALS system and even a cd/I-pod player.

4 accidents in 10 days again recently- 3 twins? Does the stats support the CAA's worrldwide obsession with twins?

[JimL]

SASless (all of this is contained in the paper you have already found),

Those pictures are all of the accident scene - known in JARs as the HEMS Operating Site; there are basically few restrictions at this site and PC2 with Exposure is permitted (or PC3 with exposure outside a Congested Hostile Environment).

What is being discussed as far as Wellington is concerned is a Hospital in a Congested Hostile Environment - this still attracts alleviations but only on the basis of exceptional problems (a pre-existing site (before 2002) which is too small or which has difficult obstacles).

The final type of site is the HEMS Operating Base - for which no alleviations (beyond those permitted to all operations) are permitted.

The risk profile of these three types of sites is based upon frequency of use - permitted risk is inversely proportional to the amount of use.

Unless the sortie is on the basis of "facilitating emergency assistance where immediate and rapid transportation is essential" it is not a HEMS Flight and no HEMS alleviations are possible.

Victor papa, I do not speak for the CAA but I was not aware that they had a 'worldwide obsession with twins'; if what you have described is required for South Africa then who is to argue. However, as you are aware from our previous discussions, for Europe the size of the aircraft is driven by the operating and medical requirements. We are also seeing a trend towards larger cabins for operators in the US. In additional, with the larger aircraft comes the ability to operate IFR - if required.

Jim

[SASless]

JimL,

Perhaps we can get Nick Lappos to remind us of the probability of a single engine failure....seems it was something along the lines of .000000008 or something like that. I would have to assume if you had two engines the probability would double that.

How do we arrive at an "acceptable risk" definition?

It would appear even the CAA admits there is no way to eliminate all risk and will accept deviations. Why would a pre-2002 heliport be eligible for continued use if it fails to meet the new requirements if risk avoidance is the basis for these regulations?

Is this not a contradiction of the CAA's own position by its own interpetation of the rules?

[JimL]

You don't need Nick to provide that information - it is 1:100,000 flight hours. If you have two engines, the probability of one failing is 2:100,000 flight hours (two engines twice the exposure). The effect of failure is nil when in PC1 (or nil when above 200ft in PC2); or a forced landing when in PC3 (or when below 200ft in PC2).

The probability of both failing from independent causes is the probability of the first times the probability of the second - i.e. 1:10,000,000,000.

Acceptable risk is generally decided by society - on the basis of what is unacceptable risk. Risk is quantitatively stated in some rules - FAR/CS 29.1309 being the most well known (1:1,000,000,000). Acceptable risk is conditioned by the number of passengers exposed; that is why operational rules vary with the number of passengers carried.

None of what has been discussed is of the CAA's making; most of the rules are now provided by/for Europe - previously the JAA and now EASA. The basis for the 2002 deadline was to provide an incentive for improvement of landing sites at hospitals; no one wanted new helipads (in cities) to be too small or so badly sited that they would not be able to be used in PC1 (and it was size and location not helicopter performance that was the driver). At the time of the provision of the alleviation, 2002 was in the future.

Jim

[SASless]

JimL,

This link takes you to an FAA document that compares JAR Safety measures to the FAA standard and defines incident rates and other measures used.

http://www.faa.gov/library/manuals/aviation/risk_management/ss_handbook/media/Chap3_1200.PDF

While you were posting I was googling and found the following at a previous posting here at pprune by Nick.

At the risk of incurring his wrath twice in one day.....here is his post from before.

Nick Lappos18th October 2002, 13:00
Some statistic approximations about failures, (a failure is a total catastrophic loss of full function):

Turbine engines fail at about 1: 250,000 hours for engine cause, about 1:100,000 hours for all causes (fuel lines, tanks, pilot fingers on switches).

Transmissions, rotors and such tough stuff fails about 1:10,000,000 hours to 1:100,000,000)

So, for a 10,000 helicopter fleet, where they each fly 500 hours per year, (this is approximately the world's civil helo fleet) we collectively log 5 million hours per year.

At the above failure rates, we can expect an engine failure every week (50 per year), a main rotor or main transmission failure every two years.

If we include all the military helos in the world (10,000 in the US alone, about the same for the rest of the world) we would triple the usage, and therefore increase the likelihood of occurrence by a factor of three.

Three engine failures a week, and a major rotor/transmission failure every 8 months.

To examine what it means to any one of us, we have to fly 200 years at 500 hours per year to get an engine failure, and we have to fly for 20,000 years before a transmission or rotor fails.

To compare to cars, in the US, one person dies about every 25,000,000 miles driven (100 million cars at 10,000 miles each, at 40,000 fatalities). If you drive 10,000 miles per year, you can expect to be killed every 2500 years in your car. This is slightly conservative, because there might be more than one occupant in the typical car, but then again, everything else in this post isn an approximation

[Te_Kahu]

Jim L. The Wellington BK is a B2 that was upgraded from a B1. However, I understand that it didn't have the B2 torque guages installed so it can't be operated to the B2 OEI charts.

SAS. I expect it was a very easy position to have formed given your experiences elsewhere. The situation is NZ is exacerbated by a highly cynical manipulation of the rules and of the public by some of the trusts and operators of rescue services. Some have just ignored the rules that exist.

That's not to say there is a strong argument for singles these days. But, there has been no attempt to put up an argument, lobby, etc etc. Some here have just ignored the rules knowing that as soon as CAA moved they'd be able to kick up public sympathy.

Wait for the report or research or some such to be released down here to show how safe singles are and trying to button hole CAA as been unreasonable and putting people's lives at risk. (I gather it is being prepared as we speak by a lawyer! If that's not cynical I don't know what is.)

This is in no way a comment on the pilots, especially not the younger ones just getting going in their careers who have been given a chance with some of these operators.

TK

[JimL]

Thanks Te_Kahu.

SASless - a very interesting paper very much a standard text and one that has been accepted world-wide and which now is part of the ICAO work on SMS.

Nick, as always, has provided an extremely interesting overview; examination of the failure rates for engines will show that the 1:100,000 is a mean figure with some below and some above. This figure was confirmed when the Risk Assessment was provided for justification of Exposure on the North Sea.

Returning to the referenced FAA work, you will see that that the engine failure rate comes into the categorisation of 'Probable'; further examination of the Risk Matrix in figure 3.9 will show that the application of 'Probable' to the grid with a likely consequence of 'Major' (or worse) puts the operation into the 'High Risk' category (which cannot be ignored).

Lastly Nick's treatise, quite reasonably because of the audience, puts the emphasis on the risk to a single pilot. ICAO, States and organisations, whilst still considering the individual pilot, have to take a wider view and address systematic risk.

My reading of the NZ CAR text (notwithstanding the incorrect categorisation of the Performance Classes) indicates that this is exactly what was being considered for the Wellington site.

Jim

[SASless]

Let's muddy the waters yet again....

The given probability is based upon per flight hour is it not?

Thus if you assume five minutes of exposure for landing and takeoff....for a total of ten minutes per HEMS flight....would that not kick the probability back by a factor of six?

Then if one considers the actual number of operations and begin to calculate the exposure in that way....I would think the stats are altered by more than a lot.

I am a devout believer in strong twins for HEMS work so I am not banging a drum for singles but I am on the side of using accurate application of statistics in making decisions.

Did you guys not just have a record setting over-water rescue where a single engined aircraft went right alongside a Twin? What does that say about the view on safety while arguing about this pad in Wellington.

It would have been permissible to fly the victim (a hand injury...non-life threatening) over all that cold seawater but not land him at the hospital in question.

The lawyer just might be able to present a valid argument.

[Te_Kahu]

SASS

Yes. This week's record replaces the previous record for over water rescue in a single. I would expect that in the future such rescues will be done by the Air Force in their shiny new NH90s.

Man recovers after chopper rescue from the sub-Antarctic | NATIONAL (http://tvnz.co.nz/national-news/man-recovers-after-chopper-rescue-2455370)

Here is some vid taken from the B3.

They're now saying in this news story that the hand injury was potentially life threatening. But without a little more information it is a touch hard to imagine how.

A little more digging and it has been suggested to me that the Director of NZ CAA was motivated into acting by complaints about use of the Wellington Hospital pad outside of the regs and that maybe the hospital's insurers are getting a little twitchy. That is but a suggestion though.

TK

[SASless]

After the Rescue while being interviewed....a quote from one of the pilots involved in the rescue.


"Don't ask me to go if there's another one out there, because I wouldn't...it's as simple as that."

[Te_Kahu]

SASS What I think what Graeme was trying to say is that he would not go without another helo providing the top cover. Up until recently our marine rescue authorities would send a plane as top cover.

[topendtorque]

The probability of both failing from independent causes is the probability of the first times the probability of the second - i.e. 1:10,000,000,000


No need to set up a portable ramp in the Hudson then??

[JimL]

TET,

Hence my conditional statement about 'independent causes'.

Jim

[SASless]

How many complete engine failures (as in all engines on the aircraft) failures of airliners have we had in the time since turbine/turbojet/turbofan engines have been the primary type of power?

In light of the "bazillion" hours flown I would imagine that number is still awfully small.

Again...we accept risks or there would be no flying done ever.

The question is to define what is an "acceptable risk"?

I would climb into a US Air flight today without any hesitation.....beyond the normal reluctance to be a back seat driver.

I cannot say that about a HEMS ride in this country however....no thank you...I will go by ground!

[bkflyingfreak]

I would suggest that the rescue helicopter based in Palmerston North is going to be buggered if the feds dig their heals in on this one. The Squirrel would average a trip a day from Palmerston North to Wellington and it would be a safe bet to assume that 50% of the flights are not life and death.
It is not the end of the world of course as the Philips Trust will just need to pick up a BK from somewhere and problem solved.

[mybighorse1]

Putting a BK in Palmy wouldnt help - it wont achieve cat A performance in a medical config.... see posts above.
The CAA have a duty to uphold and enforce the rules weather we as pilots agree or disagree with the rules they are enforcing - it would be irresponsible and against their mandate to expect anything less. The fact its taken them this long to react to a blatent rule breaking by almost all rescue operations in NZ is dissapointing.
If you disagree with the rules then maybe you should have taken more notice of the rule making process or maybe you should be campaining to have the current rules changed, there are avenues for this and the AIA and ALPA could help. Short of this pick up the phone and call John Fogden.
In the meantime I would suggest there are many in the firing line if an incident were to happen, the hospitals for holding the part 139 helipad certification and not enforcing its requirements, the heli operator and the PIC would be done for using a certified helipad and not being able to comply.
Hey - just get a helicopter that will comply then everyone would be happy!:E

[Te_Kahu]

My understanding is that a B2 BK has Cat A performance but with weight limitations i.e. 2,850 kgs as opposed to 3,250. Palmerston North is only a 45 minute flight away!

I understand Airwork in Auckland are, or will soon be, trialling the new Lycoming which will give the B2 Cat A at MAUW.

TK

[2 per rev]

And if they fit the upgraded torque gauge. Not all BK117 B2's in NZ seem to have had them fitted due cost. ($30,000 ?) They are not required to either, but it creates different B2's.

[bkflyingfreak]

So if Wellington hospital requires a twin engine helicopter why is one not required to fly into Palmerston North hospital? I would suggest that an engine failure while landing or departing either of these pads would have a similar outcome.

[bkflyingfreak]

Ok having a look through the flight manual of a B2 BK117 Cat A operations into Wellington are not problem.
Empty weight 2000kg, Pilot 95kg, Patient 95kg, Crew 190kg, Fuel 380kg, EMS kit 200kg?
Total weight 2960kg
Looking at the graph the BK could maintain Cat A performance up to 37 deg C at this weight.
On a more realistic 25 deg C summer day 3200 kg is achievable at 1000 DA.
This is a B2 that has an OEI torque limit of 125%. Carry out service bulletin 117-125 and this is increased to 140%

[sunnywa]

BK117B2 Performance Cat A VTOL (as the pad would be),

All figures are for the WA Police BK with EMS fit so might vary slightly:
Basic Weight 2050kg, with kit (Pilot, Doc, medic + patient) = 2510kg
Max Weight 2900kg corrected for DA (Doesn't include medical equipment but does include stretcher)

Elev zero ft
ISA = Max 2830kg, = 320kg fuel
ISA+10, 2760kg, Fuel 250kg
ISA+20, (a stretch for wellington me thinks), 2700kg, 190kg fuel

so it is doable for arrival off a job. :)

[Te_Kahu]

I saw the Palmerston North Squirrel fly into Wellington airport not hospital on Thursday. A friend who lives near the hospital says only the "Westpac chopper" - which is Lifeflight's BK - has been coming to the hospital over the last week and a half.

Curious, given the initial outcry to the media.

TK

[RVDT]

In the old days before dedicated HEMS most operations were conducted as follows and can still be done of course. If you are standing up and calling yourself a dedicated service and cannot comply with the rules, then obviously unless the following applies, you cannot conduct the operation.

With dedicated services now available, unless the operation is the last resort, you would have a difficult case.

NZ Civil Aviation Act 1990

13A Duties of pilot-in-command and operator during emergencies

(1) Subject to subsections (2) and (6) of this section, in an emergency that arises
in flight, the pilot-in-command may breach the provisions of this Act or of
regulations or rules made under this Act.

(2) For the purposes of subsection (1) of this section, a breach of any prescribed
requirement is permitted only if the pilot-in-command is satisfied that—
(a) The emergency involves a danger to life or property; and
(b) The extent of the breach of the prescribed requirement goes only as far
as is necessary to deal with the emergency; and
(c) There is no other reasonable means of alleviating, avoiding, or
assisting with the emergency; and
(d) The degree of danger involved in complying with the prescribed
requirement is clearly greater than the degree of danger involved in
deviating from it.
(3) Subject to subsections (4) to (6) of this section, where an emergency (not
being an emergency that arises in flight) necessitates the urgent transportation
of persons or medical or other supplies for the protection of life or property,
the pilot-in-command of the aircraft or the operator of the aircraft may breach
the provisions of this Act or of regulations or rules made under this Act.
(4) For the purposes of subsection (3) of this section, a breach of any prescribed
requirement is permitted only if—
(a) The emergency involves a danger to life or property; and
(b) The extent of the breach of the prescribed requirement goes only as far
as is necessary to deal with the emergency; and
(c) There is no other reasonable means of alleviating, avoiding, or
assisting with the emergency; and
(d) The degree of danger involved in deviating from the prescribed
requirement is clearly less than the degree of risk in failing to attend to
the emergency.

There is the requirement that if you do take up this option you must clearly report the case. Your report will need to be watertight.

The head of the Rotary Unit is one of the few people I know to be charged under the Regulations and the Act, so he is well experienced in these matters!

52A Failure to notify emergency breach of Act or regulations or
rules
Every pilot-in-command commits an offence and is liable to a fine not exceeding
$5,000 who, without reasonable excuse, fails to comply with section 13A(6) of this
Act (which relates to the notification of breaches of this Act or regulations or rules
made under this Act that are committed during an emergency).

[Te_Kahu]

By EMILY WATT - The Dominion Post | Thursday, 26 February 2009



The Civil Aviation Authority has told rescue helicopter pilots they risk breaking the law during some flights to Wellington Hospital and wants proof they are following the rules.

Pilots have called the rules "ridiculous" and expressed concerns about the impact on patients.

The Dominion Post last month reported that most rescue helicopters flying into Wellington are banned from landing in built-up areas unless it is a life or death emergency.

CAA wrote to operators this month saying it believed they were landing at Wellington Hospital too often. Director Steve Douglas said he doubted the flights were meeting civil aviation rules and asked operators to justify flights.

"I am concerned that these inconsistencies may have safety implications," he wrote.

Up to 80 helicopter flights land at Wellington Hospital each month. At least half are emergency flights but a large proportion of the rest are believed to be routine transfers.

Patients and operators from Palmerston North, Hastings, New Plymouth and Nelson, which all fly single-engine helicopters, are likely to be affected.

Palmerston North's Square Trust rescue helicopter has stopped flying all but emergencies into Wellington since the crackdown. Director John Funnell said this added another hour to travel time as patients had to land at the airport and be transferred by ambulance. The rules were unclear and it could be up to the courts to decide whether they could continue landing at the hospital, he said.

"One would hope that some common sense will prevail here and that they will look at the risk involved."

Mike Toogood, of the Hawke's Bay Rescue Helicopter, said most patient transfers from the region were by aircraft. Only time-critical emergencies, signed off by a doctor, flew into Wellington by helicopter.

Helilink chief pilot Alan Deal earlier said the crackdown would have a huge effect on the industry.

"We have to find places to land, like airfields for instance, and that will create a huge ambulance logistics problem."