Firefighter's request for discussion about LZ video

[jpalmos]

Hello Folks,

First let me introduce myself. My name is Jonathan and I am a Captain at my fire department. On a basis, I am setting up LZ's so that we may fly patients out that are in critical care situations.

Below is a link to a video which has me a little confused. I was wondering if you could give me some opinions on this and what you guys think would be an optimal landing situation. Since we rarely ever get a chance to talk to our pilots (Due to the situation).

In the video, I don't think I would ever have a helicopter land here. Especially with a field next to it. Since I'm far from a pilot, maybe there is something that I a missing that you guys could fill in the blanks on. Or this is really as irresponsible as it looks.

Close Call: Air Ambulance Clips Electrical Lines on Take Off | The Fire Critic (http://firecritic.com/2011/04/close-call-air-ambulance-clips-electrical-lines-on-take-off/)

Have a great day!!!!

Jonathan

[Flying Lawyer]

Or this is really as irresponsible as it looks.

It certainly doesn't look irresponsible to me, just an error of judgment.
Most of us make mistakes from time to time, whatever job we do - apart from those people lucky to be perfect.

BTW, already discussed here: http://www.pprune.org/rotorheads/446200-brainfarts-gotta-hate-em.html

[jpalmos]

I completely apologize. In the Firefighter forum we are debating about it. So instead of trying to figure it out from everyone's opinions, I figured I would just ask a pilot and voila. Here I am. I'm not a pilot by any means and this is way out of my league.

I'll read it further to see if I could gather some accurate information.

[rotorrookie]

Observer or ground safety guy with two way radio communications’ to the PIC would most likely prevent this from happening. Big heavy ambulances’ with retractable gear like this S-76 is better situated on firm smooth surface
Even though they can be put down in all sorts of spots
http://i97.photobucket.com/albums/l222/rotorhead999/Namnls3.jpg
http://i97.photobucket.com/albums/l222/rotorhead999/gustavsfors2.jpg

HEMS photo thread on rotorheads
http://www.pprune.org/rotorheads/270193-hems-operations-photos.html

[Devil 49]

Regarding HEMS LZ operations, call anybody you know at any of the programs you work with, they'll likely hook you up. If you're in the Gainesville, GA (USA) come by the base and I'll buy you a cup of bad coffee and get into the subject as much as you like. Or PM me.
Point is, most in the industry will do everything they can to help you do the job. The better you do, the better we do, flying in and out.
Lots of really knowledgeable people here, but they're likely not where you are and probably won't be the ones working your scenes. There are local differences in how this is done.

[Thomas coupling]

Jpalmos,

I was the chief pilot for a police/hems outfit and i can tell you now that the pilot would be looking for a new job if that was our cab.
There is no excuse for not being aware of these wires during a pre take off recce. Unbelievable poor airmanship.

Re the other point you raised. One should always land on the main road as a last option for various options and in no particular order:

blocking the traffic.
blowing debris (sometimes criminal evidence) around.
risk of damage to the helo from passing (enthusiastic) emergency service vehicles like fire trucks trying to get to the scene - thinking they can get past and under the disc.

The field he eventually landed in would have been the preferred LZ provided it was accessible by the ground troops and also safe to approach and depart from.

This video is an embarrassment to the industry, the pilot is a dork - sorry flying lawyer...you cant make mistakes like this in aviation, it could have wrapped itself round the tail rotor and the pilot could have lost control of the helo resulting in additional casualties/fatalities.

Off with his head I say:ugh:

[rotornut]

The photo of the '76 on the railroad tracks reminds me of an accident in Saskatchewan a number of years ago. The pilot - I think he was flying a Bell 47 - was out in the bush and decided to land on the railway tracks. He felt it was safe because there aren't many trains in the north central part of the province. Well - you can probably guess the rest - he picked a bad time because along came a big freight train which couldn't stop in time. Fortunately everyone safely got out of the chopper but the pilot had some explaining to do to his boss.

[Canuck Guy]

Jonathan:
The landing situation here was acceptable. I know the crews in the helicopter and the medics in the back. They landed right where they were wanted for ease of transfer from the road ambulance to the heli. The field was a very poor 2nd option (as I'm sure you know, getting a loaded stretcher over a fence is no picnic). In the video the field looks great, in reality it was far from it.

Re the other point you raised. One should always land on the main road as a last option for various options and in no particular order:

blocking the traffic.
blowing debris (sometimes criminal evidence) around.
risk of damage to the helo from passing (enthusiastic) emergency service vehicles like fire trucks trying to get to the scene - thinking they can get past and under the disc.


Nothing wrong with landing on roads for various reasons in no particular order...
A: Who cares about blocking traffic, you're there to save someone's life
B: Blowing debris can and will be found anywhere. Roads and fields, front yards and back yards and runways. (Blowing away evidence??? rofl)
C: Any ambulance or fire crew with half a brain won't come near a helicopter on the ground, whether it's blades are turning or not. The only ones who should approach are the medics with the patient.

[ifresh21]

Thanks for the really good video.

[Bertie Thruster]

I agree with TC's 3 points re landings on roads, adding: blocking the road for departing road ambulances already on scene.

Re debris; if the accident proves fatal the position of vehicle debris seems to get the Feds here very twitchy (even litigious if its been moved)...... so Canuck could you retract your 'rofl' for uk roads at least!

Had to deal once with incident of a hub cap blown into casualties face. Not on my watch luckily.

Ease of transfer definitely comes second if there are sufficient firefighters to move cas. Or even using land veh, if available, to move the cas round the corner to a clear HLS. Safety trumps cas every time.


Perhaps the roads are bigger in Canada?

[Gordy]

I'm with Canuck Guy....I have landed on roads many times to drop off or pick up firefighters--no big deal.

[Unhinged]

I'm with Flying Lawyer on this one - a mistake rather than irresponsible.

There's no evidence that the pilot didn't do a recce, or that the pilot didn't know the wire was there. In fact, given the gentle pick-up and pedal turn away from the wire, it looks like the pilot was fully aware of the wire. What s/he wasn't aware of was the gentle drift backwards which occured before take-off. Without that, the helicopter would have cleared the wire.

I do a lot of work with pilots conducting serious low flying ops, including required flying sequences under wires. We know from experience that when pilots hit wires they are usually fully aware of the wire's presence.

There are well-known techniques to reduce the risk, but the reality is that being aware of a wire doesn't stop pilots hitting it. If you could solve that problem you deserve a Nobel prize.

[Canuck Guy]

Sorry about the "rofl" thing. But in my EMS experience we would never land close enough to the actual scene to cause anything to get blown. Always a good distance from the wreck where all the first responders are gathered doing their thing.

Jonathan, next time you're on a scene try to get a minute to chat to the pilot(s). We are always willing and eager to chat it up with fire and medic crews about how everyone goes about their business and making it safer.

I'm also curious by your initial post, saying you'd never clear a helicopter to land somewhere you felt unsafe. Do the UK pilots not have the final say in where to land or does it have to be at the LZ marked out on the ground? I wouldn't have been popular in that case lol... had a running joke that the ring of flares was the one place you probably did not want to land :)

Perhaps the roads are bigger in Canada?

What you call a road, we call sidewalks :p

[JimL]

I'm not interested in assigning blame but wish to introduce two elements into this discussion.

Firstly; Canuck Guy quite rightly makes the point that the pilot has the final say on the choice of the landing site; whilst that is correct, there are constraints in Europe with respect to the size. The regulations state that the HEMS Operating Site must be big enough to provide adequate clearance from all obstructions and then in guidance - because it cannot be a requirement - states that the minimum dimension should be 2D. Clearly this site is not 2D wide.

Secondly, the manoeuvre contributed to the incident.

In general, spot turns can be placed into one of three types:

the standard one that is centred upon the rotor axis (this is the one taught to student pilots and is the easiest to perform because it requires only the application of pedal and the maintenance of stability) - this requires an area of 1.2D in which to contain the helicopter;

the one that is centred on the midpoint of the helicopter - this is the most difficult to perform and usually requires markings to follow (the 'touchdown and positioning marking' is specified in heliport/helideck requirements and has an inner dimension of 0.5D of the helicopter) - this requires an area of 1D in which to contain the helicopter;

the last is the one centred upon the pilot - this was the one used by the pilot in the incident, in some sense it is the most accurate because the pilot can pick and maintain a spot around which to turn - unfortunately it requires an area of 1.5D in which to contain the helicopter.

The landing site in the video is just over one rotor diameter wide (about 0.83D) - more importantly the obstacles on the starboard side are just over a rotor radius from the centreline of the site. As the pilot performs the spot turn, the tail rotor is inevitably placed under wires (this would probably have been the case with any of the spot turns described above).

As has been mentioned in another post, it was lucky that the main rotor disc cut the wire, a tail rotor strike would have led to far more serious consequences.

Jim

[Thomas coupling]

Gordy - you surprise me.
As all of you out there know (who do HEMS especially) there is a huge flashing light that illuminates on the CWP when a pilot is told that there is a serious accident and casualties are involved - It's called the EGO light!
It comes on when the red fog forms and the pilot comes under pressure from the crew in the a/c (perceived, often silent) pressure from the crash scene crew to get down and finally any police/ambulance radios going off.
The pilot simply has to get as close as possible to the scene........because.......because.....
EVEN if he/she had to land on the road - why so close to all the action (crash scene/poles/wires/trees)?

I bet this guy could easily have landed in a quieter spot and well away from the wires. He force landed eventually into the field, so what was wrong with that in the first place. Answer: I am a professional pilot and I will show them how good I am - watch how eloquently I manouevre this large a/c into that small space....EGO light ON :ugh:

The bloke's a nob and he deserves his P45. As Jimsaid/agreed, if that had been tail rotor....goodbye Vienna.

I don't care how many under wire flights you've done (:D). And to suggest the pilot MAY have done a recce prior to take off, simply pours fuel on the fire. If you don't "know" your a/c and its footprint, you shouldn't be flying it.

[Gordy]

TC

Gordy - you surprise me.

Why? I was actually agreeing with this:

Nothing wrong with landing on roads for various reasons in no particular order...
A: Who cares about blocking traffic, you're there to save someone's life
B: Blowing debris can and will be found anywhere. Roads and fields, front yards and back yards and runways. (Blowing away evidence??? rofl)
C: Any ambulance or fire crew with half a brain won't come near a helicopter on the ground, whether it's blades are turning or not. The only ones who should approach are the medics with the patient.

I also agree with Flying Lawyer --- this does not show the pilot to be reckless, merely a judgement error. I do not fly EMS, and therefore cannot comment on the EMS ego light.

I was not there, so cannot comment on the reasons he chose to land where he did, but based upon what I can see in the video, I would not discount it, however it may not have been my first choice of landing site due to the wires. Wires need to be respected but not feared.

I fly low level most of the time, and land off airport more than on airport. I also am required to complete a day long course on "Wire and Obstruction Avoidance Training" on an annual basis. One of the things discussed in this training is short term memory. Basically your brain can remember about 4 or 5 key pieces of "key" information at any given time before it slips into "background" memory. (Forgive me, but I may not be using the correct terminology). There are numerous cases of aircraft landing in spots next to wires and then flying right into them on departure. The training I have received now requires me to think of the wire with every other thought...for example, on lift off, my thought process is:

Check torque
Where is the wire
Check N1
Where is the wire
Check TOT
Where is the wire
yada yada yada---you get the idea.

As for:

the pilot is a dork
The bloke's a nob

Really???? Lets hope you never make a mistake.

Throw me right in the group of dorks then, because I land on many roads. And yes I do know I have trees all around me...

http://i76.photobucket.com/albums/j35/helokat/Rolla%202010/IMG_4262.jpg

Then again, I do not need to worry about vehicles trying to get past me....

http://i76.photobucket.com/albums/j35/helokat/Rolla%202010/102673301.jpg

[Coconutty]

You sure this incident wasn't in the UK ?

The cab was parked on the "right" side of the road ? :E

http://i34.photobucket.com/albums/d129/coconut11/Coconutty.jpg

[FlightPathOBN]

My initial observation

In a confined environment, I would expect the pilot to back out the way they way they came in, perhaps with ground guidance, perhaps not.
Many tight helo platforms, such as offshore platforms, the pilots back the helo up a until visual clearance, then rotate...

rotating in ground effects is just asking for problems...

[JimL]

FlightPathOBN,

Your comments are a real blast from the past. These types of helidecks should have been confined to the dustbin years ago. Annex 14 requires an unobstructed 180 degree obstacle clear segment (drop-down is possible) within a 210 degree limited limited obstacle segment (no obstacles above deck level).

Backing-up from a helideck is anathema because the 'habit' is an extremely dangerous one to have. As with this site, manoeuvring (in the sense of spot-turns) on helidecks is not recommended for the same reason that was explained in a previous post.

Hopefully the message that will be taken from this unfortunate incident is a rule of thumb (apart from the obvious one about required distances from obstacles) that, from a pilot's perspective:

less than half of the helicopter is poking out of the side

only a quarter of the helicopter is poking out of the front

three quarters of the helicopter is poking out of the back

and

the type of spot turn (see my previous post) will dictate the amount of space required for the manoeuvre.

What I omitted to say in my last post was the pilot was saved because the worst manoeuvre was employed. If a more economical one had been used, the tail rotor would have struck, not the main rotor.

Jim

[Flyting]

All in all... this pilot got lucky... It was an unfortunate incident that I am sure she learnt from and will never ever happen again in her career... My biggest worry here is that, as posted before, NO ONE waived or jumped up and down....:ugh::ugh::ugh:
So, for the fire fighters discussion, JUMP SHOUT WAIVE etc etc and get the pilots attention.
Helicopters were designed to be landed in situations like these, and some times....... just some times...... **** HAPPENS.
Some of the work I have done has dictated that I get in under a forest canopy, and the boys on the ground are communicating all the time. We don't have eyes in the back of our heads, so talk up...

[TRC]

So, for the fire fighters discussion, JUMP SHOUT WAIVE etc etc and get the pilots attention

A great idea - of course they should. The trouble is, they haven't been trained to marshal helicopters so they dont. See this picture (http://www.pprune.org/rotorheads/270193-hems-operations-photos.html#post2897170), it sums it up perfectly. The observer hanging out of the open door and a horde of Emerg Services blokes standing watching with their arms folded, with a "Nothing-to-do-with-me-mate" attitude.

There was a thread on here recently asking what you would do as a pilot if someone was attempting to marshal you, and you were unsure of their capabilities/motives.

[Flyting]

There is a difference between marshaling and getting a pilots attention when they put their tail rotor into a dangerous position.
As for the marshaling post, I for one don't follow people on the ground unless I know them. Besides, you should know your size (helicopter) and where you can put it....:E

Here are a few nice tight LZ's in the beginning...
http://www.slv.dk/Dokumenter/dsweb/Get/Document-8342

[TRC]

There is a difference between marshaling and getting a pilots attention when they put their tail rotor into a dangerous position

Exactly.

So, my point is why aren't Senior Emergency Services personnel trained to marshal?

A pilot under positive marshalling from the off is far better placed than suddenly having people jumping up and down and pointing - that's assuming that he's looking at them at he time.

How many were trying to let the pilot know he was heading for trouble in that video?

None.

[Epiphany]

I've never been marshalled from the ground at a HEMS scene - nor would I take much notice if I had been - Emergency Service people do not get enough practice and never would get enough to be competent in a controlled situation let alone an adrenalin fuelled one.

What my crew expected was to be assured that if the road were the ONLY option (and it should always be a last resort in my opinion for TC's reasons) that there were no visible wires and that the traffic had been stopped in both directions. They are often too busy to do much more anyway.

What I would like to know is why one of the rear crew was not observing from an open door on the wire side and conning the pilot. In my EMS days the crewman or (trained) paramedic would always have this responsibility when taking off from a confined area - even in a small helicopter. Basic airmanship/CRM/MCC.

[TRC]

- nor would I take much notice if I had been -

So a scheme like an abridged version of the Mil Landing Point Commander course for Station Officers and the like would be a bad idea?

They are often too busy to do much more anyway
So, let someone else who isn't pre-occupied with their primary tasks concentrate on it.

[Epiphany]

So a scheme like an abridged version of the Mil Landing Point Commander course for Station Officers and the like would be a bad idea?

Certainly not. Any further training is obviously a benefit. I would be very interested in talking with an officer on scene to obtain as much information as possible to locate a suitable landing site. Wires are always more visible from the ground and if there is a qualified person there to assess a HLS then so much the better. I just don't see where marshalling a helicopter would be of much use.

So, let someone else who isn't pre-occupied with their primary tasks concentrate on it.

I must have flown to hundreds of accidents in my 15 years as a HEMS pilot and don't think I can remember any where Police, Ambulance or Fire and Rescue Officers were standing around doing nothing. In fact at many of the scenes even I ended up either directing traffic, holding infusion drips, comforting relatives or carrying stretchers.

[FlightPathOBN]

oh great, I am dating myself again....

many of the older helo decks at hospitals appear to be an afterthought anyways...

as far as the ground situation, wouldnt it be prudent to give the firefighters some basic hand signal training? or is this just too much liability?

[N707ZS]

The wire he cut looked more like a phone line, the higher one was a power line with transformers on the poles and a much thicker wire. There was also no explosion.

[Epiphany]

Another problem is that (in my experience) the few times that I have seen someone attempting to marshall me at a scene they have invariably chosen the wrong place. It has either been too close to an obstruction, the surface wasn't suitable, they were seriously underestimating the downwash and were standing far too close or my crewman was giving me totally different instructions. Or on one memorable occasion they had marked the only suitable landing site with a large sheet held down by 4 small rocks.

So I ended up landing in a different spot and the helpful marshaller gets annoyed and thinks that I intentionally ignored the signals so I am an ignorant prick who has made him look very silly in front of his colleagues. So I have to go up and explain why I chose not to do what he wanted.

By all means give as much information to the pilot as possible over the radio then if you think you have found a suitable place tell him that you will stand there and indicate it. Raise your arms above your head and lower them to indicate the landing area and direction then get out of the way and let the crew do their thing.

If the pilot then doesn't don't thank you for doing that - he very probably is an ignorant prick.

[TRC]

... Police, Ambulance or Fire and Rescue Officers were standing around doing nothing

The photo linked in post 21 shows exactly that. Maybe it's an isolated example.


.. just don't see where marshalling a helicopter would be of much use

Like in the video that sparked this thread for example?


...they have invariably chosen the wrong place.... either been too close to an obstruction...


Like the pilot of the S76 did in the video?



.. the surface wasn't suitable, they were seriously underestimating the downwash and were standing far too close or my crewman was giving me totally different instructions. ... they had marked the only suitable landing site with a large sheet held down by 4 small rocks.

LPC training required?

So it's OK for Public Service helicopters to continue to hack down lamp posts, traffic lights, overhead cables, etc. Chop up metal signs with their main rotor that they have sucked from garage walls or get stuck on railway lines??

So far I haven't heard elsewhere or read here any valid reason for not training certain Emergency Services personnel to be some sort of Landing Point Commander (for want of a better name).

I really don't accept the argument against proper, formal training that would be of valuable assistance to pilots and go a long way to avoiding incidents as shown in the video.

[Epiphany]

TRC,

The sole reason for the S-76 accident that sparked this was that the pilot/crew didn't do what they are paid to do and instead f*cked up the take off - in a spectacular fashion.

The safety of the aircraft is the PIC's responsibility and that is why no pilot with any common sense will obey the instructions of a marshaller that he does not know or trust when taking off from a confined area.

Now - try ignoring the marshaller at Battersea heliport and you'll get your arse chewed but they know exactly what they are doing and do it many times every day. Mind you, if I taxied into another helicopter or the wall whilst obeying the instructions it would still be my fault - not theirs.

TRC - you have got your knickers in a twist over this and clearly nothing that I can say will change your opinion - nor you mine.

Nice talking with you. ;)

[TRC]

TRC - you have got your knickers in a twist over this and clearly nothing that I can say will change your opinion - nor you mine.
What do I know, eh?


Nice talking with you
Likewise

[jpalmos]

I've talked with pilots before (I'm a skydiver, of course I do.lol). None of them fly air ambulances. So they just say "not sure" because it is a different situation than landing at an airport.

None the less, for the few approtunities that I do get to talk to the EMS pilots, I get vauge answers. The usual answer I get is.

Just give us a 30m X 30m area and we'll put it there.

I don't know if they keep it vague like that because of the theory of "Knowing just enough to get you into trouble" or it's just ego. I'm not pointing a finger by any means. That is just the answer that I get. When I operate the ladder truck and I get people asking me what would help me. I usually say "just let me handle it" because there is a lot to operating a ladder truck and incorrect information would create a really bad outcome. Not that I don't want them to, it's just a lot of information to be processing and if you don't do it all the time. There's a lot of things that could be easily missed and mess everything up.

I do a competency test that members must pass if they would like to qualify as the "LZ Officer". Which is pretty basic, but I'm also all about making sure I get the proper information. By no means is the LZ officer in charge of the pilot. The ultimate say comes from the pilot.

So I would say a lack of communication and knowledge is why you don't see emergency personell on the ground communicating to pilots. Obviously the video above is a different situation, but we really don't know what to look out for. With everyone there trying to make a situation better, I would say fear of making it worse is the reason why you don't see anyone reacting. Anyways.....

LZ Officer communicating to the pilot. There is a communication established with the pilot prior to landing.

Obstructions around the LZ and locations.
Wires, buildings, trees, silo's, etc. etc.

Ground wind direction and speed in mph and degrees.

LZ type
Dirt, grass, road, hard, soft, wet.

Grade


Oh. As to why some of the Emergency personell are standing around doing nothing. Here is the reason for some of that.

Fire Department A, B, and C get dispatch to a vehicle accident.

The officer on the scene of the accident determines that the patient needs to be flown to the nearest hospital. He/she advises the dispatch center for the helicopter. Fire Department D gets dispatched to handle the LZ. Essentially Fire Department D is strictly assigned to the LZ and nothing else. That is also why in the pics you don't see the accident or problem. Because the LZ could be a couple miles down the road to a more suitable place.


PS. That picture of the red virgin helicopter landing in the intersection. I never knew that a helicopter could do that. That looks absolutely crazy.

[Epiphany]

pjalmos,

That Virgin helicopter is the London HEMS machine. The crews are very familiar with the peculiarities of landing in urban areas, get lots of practice and have permission from the CAA to do so. They still make mistakes though and have had a few blades strikes on obstructions and FOD.

When London HEMS started in 1989 the Ambulance Service were reluctant to task the helicopter because they assumed that if the incident was in the City then the helicopter could not land as there was no place large enough and close enough to the scene.

It took the simple step of sending a pilot to the Ambulance Control Centre to look at where the incident was on the street map and then convincing the Controller that it was possible to land the helicopter nearby. You'd be surprised how many parks and public gardens there are in central London.

If the only place to land was not close enough then the Police would often relay the Doctor and Paramedic to the scene by car from the landing site. Eventually the Ambulance Service realised that the pilots were the only ones who could make the decision from the air and the system began to work.

When the Police also became used to the helicopter they would kindly stop traffic and allow a landing in any large enough area - be that Oxford Circus or The Mall.


Obstructions around the LZ and locations.
Wires, buildings, trees, silo's, etc. etc.
Ground wind direction and speed in mph and degrees.
LZ type -Dirt, grass, road, hard, soft, wet.

If I heard an Officer on the scene giving me that kind of information I would be very grateful. The only other point to consider is possibly the ease of access to the accident scene. Carrying a stretcher over a hedge or stream is quite a handful and can make the difference between a good LZ and a poor one.

A great aid sometimes in rural areas is a smoke grenade or flare (be careful of causing fires) . This instantly shows the LZ from a distance to the pilot and has the added advantage of indicating wind direction and allows the pilot to establish an approach direction. The helicopter will then do a quick recce and if the LZ looks OK it will land.

Be aware that what might look good to you may not be suitable to the crew for some reason or they may be able to see a much better one from their elevated view of the immediate area.

As I mentioned before (and this is just a personal point - others may not agree) I would always rather the Officer on the ground move away and allow the helicopter crew to land where they choose. By all means keep a close eye on things and if you see a problem let them know. Wires in particular are very visible from the ground when silhouetted against the sky but may not be at all visible against the dark background of the earth, grass and trees from above.

Keep up the good work.

[jpalmos]

If I heard an Officer on the scene giving me that kind of information I would be very grateful. The only other point to consider is possibly the ease of access to the accident scene. Carrying a stretcher over a hedge or stream is quite a handful and can make the difference between a good LZ and a poor one.

The only difference with this is. We make an effort to ground transport the patient to the most applicable LZ. More times than not. This puts the LZ a couple of miles away because the transport to a Trauma center is more than 30min.

I have found after doing it several times. It is more efficient to travel a mile or two by ground in an ambulance to an LZ than planting the bird at the accident due to ground hazards. Humping a patient over a fence, through a ditch, and not compromise patient care has been less effiecient than ground travel to a more optimal location.

I appreciate everyones response. I'm far from a "Rotor head". I'm just the medium trying to better educate myself to get my patient out of my disctrict so that I can see him/her again.

[Gomer Pylot]

It depends a lot on the agency and on the accident scene. Some departments here transport to a preplanned LZ almost all the time, and some prefer to set up an ad hoc LZ at the scene. The scene environment makes a big difference, and some are more conducive to landing a helicopter than others. As a pilot, I don't care much, I'll do whatever the ground unit thinks is best, but landing at a prepared LZ does present fewer challenges than an unprepared LZ, both to the pilot and to the ground unit. Just let us know where you want us and we'll be there, but please make an effort to survey the LZ for obstacles and wires. Trees, etc aren't a big issue, but wires and stakes, stumps, etc can be, and I would like to be warned about these, even though I never ever fully trust the ground unit to find all of them. I know they try, but I also know how easily they can be missed. As long as you make the effort, I won't complain.