Helicopter Crash Kills 3, Puts Transplant on Hold

[visibility3miles]

By JENNIFER KAY Associated Press
MIAMI December 27, 2011 (AP)
A helicopter that was on its way to retrieve a heart for transplant crashed in northern Florida, killing all three on board and leaving the transplant patient having to wait for another organ to become available.

The helicopter departed from a Mayo Clinic in Jacksonville on Monday around 5:45 a.m. carrying a surgeon and a technician along with the pilot. But the helicopter never arrived at the Gainesville hospital, Shands at University of Florida, about 60 miles to the southwest, said Kathy Barbour, a spokeswoman for Mayo, which is based in Rochester, Minn.

Killed were heart surgeon Dr. Luis Bonilla, procurement technician David Hines and the pilot, whose name wasn't released.
Helicopter Crash Kills 3, Puts Transplant on Hold - ABC News (http://abcnews.go.com/US/wireStory/helicopter-crash-kills-puts-transplant-hold-15237674#.TvnXz5jTJSU)

[rotorspeed]

Night flight with a transplant surgeon in an old B206?? Even if you discount the reportedly light fog in the area - which may well though turn out to be significant - this is surely just madness, with far too high a risk. Is certainly considered so in Europe anyway. Well debated subject I know, but this seems to be another strong pointer to IFR twins being mandated for night flights.

[Shell Management]

Another senseless loss. But hey, who needs to learn to fly on instruments when you can skim the ground in the inky blackness.:ugh:

[n5296s]

It's great that you guys know what happened. The NTSB folks will certainly appreciate not having to do all that tedious analysis of the wreckage and so on.

[Shell Management]

The IHST have been very critical of the poor standard of NTSB helicopter investigations.

[rotorspeed]

n5296s

Well I clearly don't know what happened, but quite frankly if nothing happened and the flight was successful I'd still say it was madness in this day and age. So you think it's fine to fly 206s on this sort of mission at night do you?

And anyway, I reckon the chances are pretty high that the accident will be found to be caused by a related risk - ie either LOC in IMC or engine failure. So what do you think n5296s?

[Shell Management]

From the US press:

Bergen said the helicopter went down about 12 miles northeast of Palatka, which is about 40 miles east of Gainesville.

Federal and local investigators were on the scene Tuesday to look through the wreckage, Clay County Sheriff’s Office Lt. Russ Burke said Tuesday.

The site was about a mile off a dirt road in a densely wooded area, and the crash ignited a fire that burned about 10 acres of woods, Burke said.

The wreckage was discovered around noon Monday, and the aircraft was not in one piece, he said.

“It was well hidden in the woods,” Burke said. “If it hadn’t set the woods on fire it might have been awhile before anyone spotted it.”

[Gordy]

Firstly.... RIP to the pilot and passengers.

Secondly, while I agree this may not have been the best decision to take off under these circumstances, I get pi$$ed off at all the "high and mighty" who are all over any crash in the US, yet if it was in Europe, we would be yelled at for "speculating".

The flight was NOT an EMS helicopter but a charter from SK Jets (http://www.sk-jets.com/), the pilot who died was the president of the company.

I will speculate that there is a high probability of weather being the related cause...but will also add, (and as most know--I am NOT an EMS pilot), that these flights can be made safely in 206's. It comes down to training and attitude, not necessarily the aircraft. Sometimes one needs to say "no".

[Shell Management]

So the 'President' is flying a 1976 B206B at night. Another Mom and Pop operation then.

http://www.firstcoastnews.com/slideshows/Mayo%20Clinic%20Hospital%20Crash/Mayo%20Helicopter%20Crash%2005.jpg

[Gordy]

SM

Regardless of whether I agree with you or not.... You cannot even have any condolences.... People like you should be banned... I will not engage further with you.... as most on here have already done so--I will now ignore you. Good Bye.

[before landing check list]

Gordy, I totally agree with you. As far as I know there is nothing wrong with the 206 in a night flight. It is all about attitude and training. If someone thinks that having more then one engine will cover for poor piloting skills and lack of judgement then I feel sorry for them. SM is just wasting air. As far as everything else is concerned we are just speculating.

[Shell Management]

Gordy

The first words I wrote on this tragedy were: Another senseless loss.

Do you really need to use (abuse?) the memories of the victims of such unnecessary tragedies attack me or anyone else devoted to accident prevention simply to justify your own low aspirations of safety?:confused:

blcl

I didn't mention engines. I think your own predudices are surfacing.:=

[n5296s]

@SM

What a to$$er. Blocked.

[before landing check list]

OK SM I will bite, what part of 1976 206B do you think is not suitable for this flight?

[Shell Management]

Use of a single pilot rotorcraft.:ugh: at night.

[before landing check list]

Like I said before, we are just speculating on the cause. And there is nothing wrong with a well trained and competent pilot going single pilot anything at night.

[Shell Management]

By 'nothing wrong' do you mean legal?

It is exceptionally high risk.

Think about private medical costs in the US. Is it right to use the lowest common denominator aircraft to do this task?

[MamaPut]

Ah the high and mighty SM, the king of 'twins are the answer to everything' :mad:. Have you ever seen the slightest expression of condolences for anybody killed or injured in any post of his :confused:. No, everything is just another useless item of propaganda in his campaign to prove that he is a 'safety expert' and Shell are the world leaders in safety, rather than just another oil company which will use its corporate billions of $$$ profits to appear to be supporting good safety causes and cultures, whilst still cutting every corner it can and using every trick in the book to force helicopter operators to cut costs and then blaming them if things go wrong :mad::mad::mad:.

Use of a single pilot rotorcraft. at night. I guess when he did his pilot training it was in a twin? Yeah right :ugh: The sheer hypocrisy of this jumped up little squirt's posts beggar belief :yuk:

[jonwilson]

Single pilot at night, what's wrong with that?

Do we not train pilots any more to be able to fly on their own at night? If not then we may as well write off the small commercial industry if we are going to have to pay for two pilots. Europe is managing to do that.

I don't think that at this stage we can bring the twin engined debate into the equation as we do not know whether having a second engine in this case would have prevented this terrible accident.

SM we must remember that different countries operate different rules. In Europe there are some very good rules and some absolutely daft ones. In the U.S. they are the same. The U.S. has managed to make the industry a damn site more popular than Europe for various reasons. Whilst Europe MAY provide rules for a safer environment they are very prohibitive in many areas. Who is right?

Rather than rant on about the twin debate or pushing the point that all flights at night should be two crew perhaps we should focus on good pilot training from the start. Only a suggestion.

RIP for the poor folks involved.

[MamaPut]

Rather than rant on about the twin debate or pushing the point that all flights at night should be two crew perhaps we should focus on good pilot training from the start. Only a suggestion.


Presumably how SM ended up as a 'safety expert' and gave up being an aviator "cluck, cluck, cluck"

[rotorspeed]

Too many people are being knee-jerk defensive here. A surgeon and a technician have been killed, along with the pilot. Gordy you might have a go at SM for not offering his condolences, but I can bet you the relatives of the dead pax will be far more concerned about why the accident happened and what could/should have been done to prevent it. And I suspect it will turn out that an IFR twin would have avoided the fatality. You quite reasonably say it's about training and the ability to say "no". So why in this instance might have "no" been appropriate, if it wasn't for the fact it was a VFR 206? And what training might have been lacking? Would seem the pilot was pretty experienced.

Before Landing Checklist; you ask what part of the 206 was not suitable. Well how about its one engine. This 206 came down over dense forest. What would you do if the donk stopped then? Ok, I suppose you'll say you'd be avoiding all the areas where you couldn't autorotate to a safe landing, using the landing light. Yeah, yeah. I do agree though with those that consider single pilot at night is quite acceptable.

And JonWilson and MamaPut, what training are you advocating that might have enabled this old 206 to complete the flight safely? Apart perhaps from the sense to say I won't do this in a single engine VFR helo.

I guess the physical size of the US might mean the benefits of helicopter medevac are greater that in much of Europe. There can surely be no doubt that use if IFR SP twins would be safer at night. Admittedly though the cost would be substantially higher. Does anyone actually know of any research or statistics that back up the use of single engined helos at night? For example, what is the fatal accident rate of twins over singles? What is reckoned to be the value of a life? Or is the resistance to IFR twins here simply one of protecting an existing scale of business?

[787-1]

Use of a single pilot rotorcraft.:ugh: at night.


Twin engine:
1. Twice as much to go wrong.
2. Gets you to the scene of the crash quicker.

Why people continue to persist with the "I would have used a twin for that" bull**** is beyond me, a single is just as good, if not better. There is nothing wrong with a 206 BIII at night, albeit a 1970's...or a 2011 machine.

Remember SM, engine failures are rare - a blade could have gone walkies for all we know, would a twin really make a difference....I think not!!

Anyway, condolences to all involved - its an awful thing to happen especially at this time of year.

[Sir Korsky]

It's all about complacency I am afraid. I have witnessed 15,000 hour captains taking risks in fully IFR equipped twins that a 100 hour private would consider to be beyond the realms of common sense. SM, you are not an idiot, but you sure need to adopt some compassion within posts like these. Many ppruners are likely to have known and respected the crew. RIP.

[jonwilson]

Rotorspeed,

Yes no doubt a twin IFR two crew helo would be safer, of course it would but that's not how it's done in the U.S. How far do we delve into the safety culture box to provide a sensible but acceptable level?
I don't recall the UK operating their police helicopters two crew and IFR.

As far as providing good training from the start this is only a suggestion. Would it be an idea to ensure all pilots go through a learning debate or even assessment about factors involved in accidents. Maybe, maybe not but it's just an idea.
Before anyone says it I will add that this is not a suggestion born from this accident. It may well be that this pilot was highly experienced and until we know exactly what happened it would be wrong to jump to conclusions.

[jonwilson]

787-1

'2. Gets you to the scene of the crash quicker.'

Not really a good statement for a modern day twin.

[Geoffersincornwall]

One of the fundamentals of a Safety Management System is to risk assess literally every single aspect of every operation. Reducing accidents begins with the removal of every 'high risk aspect of an activity. Where removal is impractical then some form of mitigation must be employed.

I used to spend my winters flying single pilot day and night doing offshore shuttling 185 miles from terra firma in my trustee Bo 105. We don't do that any more. Why? Flying single pilot could be removed from our service inventory and the risks reduced. The cost-benefit was judged to be worth the candle.

We are humans, we learn from our mistakes and if we possibly can we don't stub our toes on the same rock twice. We dig up the rock or change the route. You can - and I know because I and many other pilots out there flew successfully at night in both singles and twins - on our own. It's not rocket science but it is high risk.

Literally, you pays your money and you takes your choice. It is not about well trained or not well trained ( I have lost some very competent chums at night, in a Sea King, in a Wasp and in an S76). It is simply harder to do the job safely at night and mistakes can have more serious consequences.

You are not 'wrong' if you operate single pilot/single engine at night. You are simply taking a bigger risk. If the cost-benefit equation is in favour of that modus operandi then fine but lets be honest. Does the customer get the benefit of a full explanation of the risks associated with 'economy' as compared with 'de-lux'. You should be able to guess the answer because there are not many single engine single pilot airliners out there.

Why not? When we make decisions on behalf of others we tend to err on the low risk side of the equation but when we judge risk for our own group or ourselves it is easier to feel close to the impact of price and therefore we can minimise the impact of risk and focus on other elements of the equation such as cost, enjoyment, time saving and excitement. Thus regulators say two engines at least and two pilots at least when you take the family to the Costa Brava yet, for some of us at least, given the opportunity to do the same trip in a 206 we would jump at it, even if it involved a bit of night flying and our night-rating was barely in-date. But would you send your wife and children in the same helicopter if you weren't driving and you had no idea about the person that was?

G.

[topendtorque]

Presumably how SM ended up as a 'safety expert' and gave up being an aviator "cluck, cluck, cluck"


This SM bloke, is he a "has been" in the aviator department or a "never been?"

[SASless]

I suspect it will turn out that an IFR twin would have avoided the fatality.

Pray tell how that is ol' Bean?

Care to enlightened us on why you suspect this to be the case?

Just what do you base your suspicions upon?


Twas there not an old...old 206 operated by Bristow for decades purely for IFR training....G-AVII as I recall...that just recently got flogged off for parts or scrap finally?

Does that not suggest both single engine IFR and IFR in a Jet Ranger works?

The US Army is doing it all day long at Fort Rucker in their Jet Rangers.

I can recall Bell TH-13T's doing it too.....although not cleared for IMC.

[Jack Carson]

First, I would like to express my deepest condolences to those that lost loved ones in this tragic mishap and the heart recipient that will have to suffer with the anxiety of not knowing when another organ may come available. I have flown in that area of Florida both day and night. To say the least it is very dark along that route of flight. Add patches of ground fog to the equation and you have a recipe for disaster. There were very well equipped air medical aircraft with highly trained crews including NVG and IFR capabilities at both the points of departure and destination for this flight. One has to ask why they were not utilized.

[visibility3miles]

I'm almost sorry I started this thread if I knew it would turn into a flame war about what type of aircraft is the correct one for the purpose.

1) There is a "sell by date" on fresh, viable, capable organs that match the size, blood type, histocompatibility group (look it up) of the intended transplant recipient who is nearest the top of the "I need a transplant or otherwise I die" list.

2) This may lead to bad decisions on the part of pilots. It goes way beyond "get-home-itis."

3) Losing a cardiac surgeon and technician probably represents a greater loss in terms of man-hours of training and potential lives lost than what it takes to be a good helicopter pilot. I'm sure this comment will offend most of you, as I know helicopter pilots save many, many lives, but once a heart surgeon cracks a chest, there's no flinching and no going back.

4) If you read the full story of the link I posted, the original heart that could have a life probably wound up in a standard biohazard incenrator, rather than saving another's life, as presumably the donor (dead person) or their family, and the recipient wished with, shall I say, with all their heart.

5) You never know where or why or when viable organs will become available or where they'll be needed.

6) You tell me, do all transplant hospitals (AND THEIR DONORS) have 24/7 access to full scale airports?

7) May seem grim, but some transplant surgeons refer to motorcycles as "donor cycles", as the riders tend to be very healthy young men with everything but their brain or neck intact. Helmets are good.

[Shawn Coyle]

At the risk of adding raw fuel to the fire - in my opinion, there is no such thing as night VFR, except over a built-up area.
The logic goes like this - in order to fly by visual means, you need to be able to orient the aircraft attitude, position and height by reference to the ground (or water). At night, over an unlit area, there are no references...
And we need to know whether this machine was fitted with a serviceable attitude indicator and if the pilot had any IFR training at all.

[nigelh]

Geoffers ... Good post and I agree with everything you say . We have done many hours ferrying people around the UK at night in singles . We have never had a problem but there are without doubt more "no go" times than in daylight .
I have spent 30 years on and off defending singles in the twin v single debate ...mainly because I have always flown them and that's what I had to do the job .
Now I am flying a twin ( A109 ) I have to admit that it is v v nice having a spare engine especially when over water / built up area or forestry and even an old Mk11 can take you a long way on one engine and give you valuable time to find a spot / get lights on and put a call out in the event of an engine failure . These are admittedly rare and I still am happy to do it but let's not kid ourselves that an ifr twin would not be safer .......it's just more expensive !!!!!!

[rotorspeed]

SASless

"Suspect" means I have a hunch. Not know. And I stand by that. I'll be surprised if this accident is caused by a reason that would have affected an IFR twin. Probably LOC in IMC, possibly engine failure. Probably not some catastrophic failure with, eg, the airframe or rotor system - ie something that could have as likely happened to a twin. And I base my judgement on the fact that the acft crashed at night, into a forest, with some light fog around. Now can you confirm you disagree with my suspicion? What's your hunch? Be interesting to see when the report comes out - and even if I'm proven wrong, I mainatain the added risk factors existed.

Thank you for raising B206 G-AVII. This was indeed approved for IFR training. But only in daylight, with a minimum cloudbase of 1000ft. Don't think that helps your argument.

Jonwilson - read my previous post again. I did not maintain two pilot ops were necessary.

Agree with much of what Geoffers says. Especially question as to whether you would put your wife and kids in that heli for that trip? Surely the acid test. Would you? Not me. Do however think airliner two crew point not entirely appropriate - a small twin FW carrying 4 pax is, and that may well have one crew. Not convinced night workload that much more either apart from landing and that is largely down to pilot in control.

Sir Korsky - you chide SM for not showing compassion to the crew, as many ppruners would have known the pilot. But no mention from you of compassion for the heart surgeon and technician pax, who placed their trust in the pilot's judgement. It is indeed tragic for the pilot and his family, but at least he was in a position to make a judgement about about the risks involved and make a launch decision. I suspect the pax weren't. I hasten to add though this may be irrelevant should the cause turn out to be out of the pilot's control.

Interesting post from Jack Carson....

[Sir Korsky]

Without the intent of getting into a pissing contest rotor, Crew was maybe slightly misleading. With any mission critical medical professionals onboard, I consider a generic word for crew acceptable. My deepest sympathy to all affected.

[mini]

I'd include a look at the logistics/admin aspect of this in the investigation. Lowest bidder etc. Chances are that the surgeon & medi tech wouldn't know one helo from another.

Sad thing is that the transfer could probably have been done by road...

Feel sad for those who've lost folks.

[Jack Carson]

Shawn, I am sitting on both sides of the night VFR fence. I believe that it can be done safely in many conditions. That being said the METAR for Craig Field (CRG) in Jacksonville at the time of the flight was: METAR KCRG 261053Z AUTO 01006KT 10SM OVC007 14/13 A3022 RMK AO2 CIG 006V010 SLP234 T01440128.
700 OVR with a dew point spread of 1ºC is pretty sketchy for a VFR flight in a VFR aircraft.

[EN48]

Lowest bidder etc. Chances are that the surgeon & medi tech wouldn't know one helo from another.



This is the part that is disturbing, apart from the fatalities. A 1976 helicopter no matter the type is an antique. Why the Mayo Clinic, possibly the most prestigious medical institution on the planet, is flying personnel around in an old beater like this is a puzzle. One or two engines not a factor for me. Two pilots much preferred no matter the number of engines. Thirty five year old helicopter at night in possibly restricted vis and low ceiling - no way Jose, IMVHO.

[n5296s]

if the pilot had any IFR training at all.
Is that possible? (Not to have that is). I'm just working through the "ticking the boxes" of the FAA CPL-H requirements and one of the boxes is 5 hrs under the hood. Not equivalent to an IR, for sure, but should give a basic ability to keep things the right way up over a dark area. Although maybe it's a recent addition?

[EN48]

should give a basic ability to keep things the right way up over a dark area


It doesnt. Even an IR may not get the job done for a pilot who is not current on instruments.

[Torquetalk]

but should give a basic ability to keep things the right way up over a dark area

another everlasting discussion, but seriously, a bit of attitude flying just may save your butt if you go inadvertant IMC or help you at night; but if you are on your own, get overloaded, its night, foggy: those five hours might save your life, but it also might easily be your last flight.


SM - empathy just isn't your strong point is it? :rolleyes:

[Matari]

EN48:

A 1976 helicopter no matter the type is an antique. Why the Mayo Clinic, possibly the most prestigious medical institution on the planet, is flying personnel around is an old beater like this is a puzzle.

Without commenting on the wisdom or not of flying night VFR in single engine, the age of the ship is irrelevant. On a 1976 ship, every rotating component will have been changed / overhauled many times, and the core airframe stripped, inspected, repaired, painted several times over as well.

Here is a pic of the ill-fated 206. Terribly sad for all involved.

http://farm1.static.flickr.com/188/389564436_acc3d55d03.jpg

Crash pix here: Mayo Clinic Hospital Crash - Slideshow Gallery | Jacksonville, FL - St. Augustine, FL - Brunswick, GA | Firstcoastnews.com (http://www.firstcoastnews.com/slideshows/gallery.aspx?slideshowname=Mayo%20Clinic%20Hospital%20Crash)

[Matari]

Story about the experienced pilot, Hoke Smith:

Smith started flying planes when he was a teenager, and the Army taught him how to fly helicopters in the early 1960s. He then flew them into combat in Vietnam, where he was awarded the Distinguished Flying Cross, the Bronze Star and Purple Heart, the company website says.

Hoke Smith, pilot of crashed helicopter, lived and breathed aviation | jacksonville.com (http://jacksonville.com/news/crime/2011-12-27/story/hoke-smith-pilot-crashed-helicopter-lived-and-breathed-aviation)

[blackdog7]

And Shell is different from Mom and Pop operations because of their outstanding safety record. What an arrogant comment by SM.
Sincere condolences to all at SKJets

[before landing check list]

Does anyone really think SM is really a member of Shell Management? Think about it, would a real member of management have his position posted here? I don't think so. I think SM is just a self appointment mouthpiece for someone, maybe not even a pilot judging from a may of his posts.
He feeds off of our reactions, I think he should just be ignored. He will go away.

[EN48]

Based on FAA airman database and press accounts, pilot was exceptionally well qualified.

[hillberg]

CFIT in the early morning. Most engine failure caused crashes into trees don't burn. Nothing wrong flying old helicopters as long as the maintenance is kept up. RIP to the bunch. If you don't like the risks -Go home.

[carsickpuppy]

Damn terrible tragedy.. no matter what time of the year.
RIP to all of them.
Metar gives the impression the weather may have been a bit iffy at the approximate time of the accident, for VFR.
Twin engine helicopters still have one one tranny, one tail-boom, one tail-rotor, etc. But the twin versus single debate will persist.

[Sky Bear]

I am not going to speculate on this particular accident but wait for the report, in the meantime obviously it is a sad loss for all of those involved personally.

As to the single/twin one pilot or two debates all I will say is that it is possible to fly singles at night with one pilot perfectly safely. It has been done the world over for years, it does however have an increased risk of incidents due to certain factors. As time and technology move on we reassess our risks and sometimes change how we do things.

It was mentioned here that British police operate single pilot at night in twins and not IFR. Some are in fact IFR but most are not, but ..............the aircraft are equipped for IFR.

Spatial disorientation has killed many at night and I have lost friends who drove twins in to the deck from black hole syndrome without ever entering a cloud. The difference a newer more modern airframe could have over an aged jet-ranger is the full auto pilot suite. Once you become disorientated or inadvertently enter cloud you engage the autopilot and let the computers keep you alive while you manage a recovery to a suitable airfield with a coupled ILS if required. Training to do this is carried out regularly.

It will not save you in every situation and in fact humans being what we are some will push the limits using the kit they are not licensed to and get themselves into trouble not out of it. There is no one solution to all problems and always exceptions to the rule. We however need to try as hard as we can to prevent the major reasons not use the exceptions and previous practices to justify continued risky operations.

I fly a 1969 "A" conversion jet-ranger which has had nearly every part rebuilt or replaced over the years and it is still a beautiful smooth craft to fly. I have flown it at night in years gone by but am older and wiser now and would not do so again. I also fly a slightly newer jet-ranger with basic autopilot. I would prefer to fly this at night as the automation should I become spatially lost could save my life. It is still single pilot single engine but an improvement over the older cab. I can also fly a fully IFR certified 135 with two engines, again given the choice I would prefer to travel in this over the other two. It offers me the autopilot as the newer jet-ranger but now with the added ability to fly coupled approaches if I am really in the brown stuff. Added to this it has the redundancy of two engines.

Given the choice business will try to cut costs and there is a balance to be found as in the real world budgets are not limitless. We as the pilots need to try and make our employers and passengers aware of the risks and benefits of certain operational practices so that an acceptable balance can be found. This is not an easy task.

As the saying goes, if you think safety is expensive you should try an accident!!

[Peter3127]

As a person largely unqualified to comment I will only say that that anyone who gets out of bed to fly to somebody's rescue, directly or indirectly, is a hero in my book.

I do note that the pilot also had an A109 at his disposal. I guess the man had his reasons and we don't know where his aircraft were positioned. And I too feel saddened by the loss of the pax. That is the tragedy, as they were as always downstream of the decision making process, however good and optimistic the motive.

And in time we may learn, as I hope to, from this episode.

[Bladecrack]

And in time we may learn, as I hope to, from this episode.

Peter3127 - the problem in the US is exactly that, they don't, this scenario keeps happening again and again...

Shawn Coyle makes a very valid point regarding "night VFR", with which I agree totally. There have been some unqualified comments regarding use of twin engine helicopters for this type of mission by those that obviously don't know any better.

Having flown both a B206 at night, and a modern A/P equipped fully IFR certified twin at night I know for sure in my mind which aircraft is most suited to this type of mission. (Assuming the pilot holds a valid IR and is current on instruments of course) Also I believe that this type of flight can be safely carried out by a single pilot (in an IFR twin) if so qualified, however 2 pilots would add an extra level of safety.

I mean no disrespect to the pilot involved who by all accounts was extremely experienced, but there can be NO DOUBT that to undertake this kind of mission, in a B206, single pilot at night, in poor weather was extremely high risk, and experience alone does not make up for having the odds stacked against you.

My condolences to all involved.
BC.

[Devil 49]

I have to respectfully disagree with Mr Coyle. Night VFR is can be accomplished very nearly as safely as day VFR if one uses appropriate and different flight planning criteria and cues for change of plan. In that process, you have to respect the fact that homo sapiens unaided night vision is less acute and works somewhat differently than our more typical day operation. Maintaining surface reference over areas with minimal cultural lighting can be done with adequate natural light. Personally, I'm always ready to divert around such areas and plan to do so unless everything is prefect for the proposed op.

The largest source of risk in night VFR is the same as any flight operation- pilot error, and that's pretty much true single or twin, IFR or VFR, day or night. One very important difference is that down is a much more dangerous direction at night (lest the ground smite thee unto extinction, Amen), the safe response is almost always UP when issues arise. If that's not a desirable, comfortable option for whatever reason: ceilings, fuel, ice, IFR ability, then one has to be ready to abort (much harder with visual limitations) or not go at all and decline in spite of "mission pressures".

I don't know the pilot or what happened in this event. But I don't see the basic flight profile as necessarily significantly more hazardous than that of the typical helicopter flight.

[SASless]

Devil 49 and Shawn Coyle each make valid points but I would have to side with 49 as he is in this business and does these flights frequently. Over the past few years he has made very insightful posts on this topic.

That being said....at about this point in our discussions on this topic over the years...usually following a tragedy such as this one...I post the Federal Air Regulation that pertains to Night VFR flight by Part 135 Air Taxi Operators.

I shall do so again and understand folks....I am the one to high light the words that are in bold print. Unfortunately the FAA does not do so when printing the documents that hold the following information.

§ 135.207 VFR: Helicopter surface reference requirements.
No person may operate a helicopter under VFR unless that person has visual surface reference or, at night, visual surface light reference, sufficient to safely control the helicopter.


I got to making Night VFR flights into IFR flights...."I Follow Roads"...well light roads...with lots of automobile traffic (thus lots of lights)...it might take a few minutes longer....but it sure made it easier!


Now...put yourself in a situation where you have 10SM vis with a 600-1000 foot variable ceiliing and a One Degree Temp/Dew Point spread....and a very rural sparsely lit terrain. Add in the issue of the flight being very "Time Sensitive" and probably a no notice request for a flight.

Add in the fact the aircraft was a strictly VFR machine, had no Stability Augmentation or Auto Pilot....was single pilot....

We can see where this is headed.

Such events are absolute tragedies on multiple levels and have to be addressed as such by those of us who seek to find answers out of what happened.

I suggest we all can learn from such events....or at least should as we are all subject to being a victim if we do not keep our guard up and seek the safe road when we are confronted with making decisions as this very experienced and dedicated Pilot had to do the other morning.

Look in the mirror here guys and gals...he got up that morning just like we all do at some time in our flying careers and was confronted with the need to make a decision that was not easy to make.

Until we learn the results of the official investigation we shall not know (and probably will not know even then) what actually happened to cause the fatal crash. Until then all is mere supposition....and we should remember that.

The hardest word for Pilots to utter is the simple one syllable word "NO!"

We have to say it to ourselves first....and get used to saying it...before we can call ourselves "Professional Pilots".

[Flyting]

I personally try to learn as much as possible from these sometimes heated discussions after an accident has taken place... They are a valuable tool to any pilot, whether the content is agreed upon or not. So far a lot of interresting points have been brought up from which I can learn or re-remember my training regarding night flying... I'm sure a few can say that as well.

The debate against single/twin engine and single/multi crew will go on for ever until the laws are changed and enforced. Unfortunately, we as pilots often don't have the choice to decide. Sure we can say no to certain flights, but as in this case for example (which might have happened), when someone knocks on your door late at night and asks you to go fetch a heart urgently before it and/or the recipient dies, what are you going to say??? I can only do it in the twin... But lets say the twin is down, not fueled, or parked in the back of the hangar and it will take an hour to get it airborne...and the perfectly good old 206 is parked in front, fueled and ready to go... 9 out of 10... if not 10 out of 10 of us, who all have done these flights before in a singles and on our own (with out the added rush of loss of life pressure) would say lets go.....

A quick look at the accident history over the last few years doesn't exclude twins flying multi crew from CFIT, but given the choice of a personal flight I'm sure we would all like to take the nice new twin with auto pilot/land against the trusty old single parked in the hangar.... but, do we always have the choice when we work...? Don't we wish......:{

[Thomas coupling]

Spot on SASless, nice post indeed. I would also add that this very experienced IFR qualified pilot was 68yrs old. Illegal in Europe for single pilot ops due to health limits etc.
Picture this:

Nothing but inky blackness as far as the eye can see - scud running at between 500 and 1000 feet over forests, no stab system to take the strain. Press on itis from the rear seat/ops and a guy just 2yrs short of 70.

Who, exactly is supervising this aspect of FAA operations, to CONTINUE to allow crash after crash in the US EMS world. When will you guys learn, enough is enough. I thought EMS had been flushed through and a safer regime adopted. Obviously not.

Very very sad for those left behind, but VERY avoidable.:( RIP

Who's next guys>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

[alouette3]

Firstly,let me add to the condolences offered here to the three souls in the aircraft and also to the person waiting for the heart transplant.The pilot was experienced and he certainly did not wake up that morning thinking that this would be a good day to die.There,but for the grace of God, go I.
Second, I too fly a VFR single (AS350B2) for an EMS outfit.We have only recently been provided with NVGs and before that,at my location, there were times when,if granny turned the porch light off at night, I was,for all intents and purposes, IFR.So,I too am on both sides of the Night VFR issue.
Twins versus singles is a non starter at this point as we don't know if the engine had anything to do with this.But, twins do have the ability to haul a lot more weight ,i.e. a second pilot,more bells and whistles etc.However, I do recall an S76 "fully loaded" for IFR with two pilots on board ,departing an airport,no less, running into a hill a few minutes after take off because they forgot to climb.
Ultimately, it boils down to Training and Technology going hand in hand.And, to be an EMS pilot and be able to say NO every now and then also requires a certain Temperament. It is up to the operators to offer the first two and to help select the appropriate guy for the job.And, it is getting harder everyday as the pool of experienced ,qualified pilots dries up.
Hope you all have a safe and a happy 2012.
Alt3.

[EN48]

do we always have the choice when we work...?


Yes - you always have a choice, even when you work. However, every choice, whether in aviation or in life, comes with tradeoffs, and some might not like the tradeoffs involved in refusing a flight. I would not have accepted the risks identified for this flight in this thread, however, this choice would be much more difficult if my income/career was on the line.

BTW, my understanding so far is that this flight, while somewhat urgent, was not a matter of immediate life or death. It appears as though the transplant recipient had a substantial time window and continued waiting for a new organ to become available after the flight. As others have pointed out, not an EMS flight responding to a trauma event.

[EN48]

had no Stability Augmentation or Auto Pilot

Is this a known fact?

[SASless]

Assuming a standard Bell 206B....thus no Stab or Auto pilot....most probably a GPS of some kind....basic panel...DG, ADI, VSI, ALT, AS, Compass, perhaps a VOR and Tspnder.

Again....as stated...all comments are based on supposition....not certified fact.

Just how many 1976 vintage 206's actually have SAS/Auto Pilot gear?

[Devil 49]

"Who, exactly is supervising this aspect of FAA operations, to CONTINUE to allow crash after crash in the US EMS world. When will you guys learn, enough is enough. I thought EMS had been flushed through and a safer regime adopted. Obviously not."

The accident flight was not an EMS flight. This was a charter to harvest a donated organ.

Far as I know, nobody in the FAA is "allowing crash after crash in the US EMS world" or any other facet of US aviation. Mostly, I find relying on equipment- lots of engines, gauges, second pilots and autopilots, cooperative passengers and ATC to be very bad risk management. They all present issues and that stuff won't make the PIC smarter or errors made any less difficult. If the very real prospect of a killing oneself by accepting too much hazard isn't sufficient discouragement, all the regulations, risk assessment matrices in the world won't keep you out of a smoking hole.
Not saying I don't wish for power redundancy, etc. I do, often, and I can make it work. But I've also been way down in the bottom of that bucket scrabbling hard to get out, I have no illusions about invulnerability.

There seem to me to be many factors in common with a long list of accidents in this flight. The fact that this was a single, older pilot and a 206 isn't high on my list of potential issues.

[EN48]

Just how many 1976 vintage 206's actually have SAS/Auto Pilot gear?

Not many. However the reason I raised the question is that a new "low cost" SAS/autpilot for the 206B, 206L, 407 and certain Eurocopter models has become available over the last 18 months and might possibly have been installed in this helicopter given the way in which the helicopter is used. My personal experience with this SAS/AP suggests that it could be a real bacon saver given the conditions in which the helo was said to be flying.

[HillerBee]

First my condolances to the deceased. RIP

In some countries in Europe these flights are done at Night in R44's, so stop the US/Europe debate.

[SASless]

Hit Google Earth and search for "Dynamite Road, Palatka Florida" for a good view of the terrain over which this crash occurred. The cross road in the news report was given as being Turkey Branch Road with the crash site within about a mile of the interesection supposedly.

[before landing check list]

So Shytorque we are speculating why it crashed. You seem to be saying it crashed because it had but one engine and if it had two the pilot and passenger would have still been alive? (or this flight occurred in the UK)

Rotorspeed you seem to be saying it is not so much having 2 engines it is having IFR capability, right? Even though your rules say "No IFR in a single" it is not so much having 2 engines, it is having IFR capability....right? And if so (and we are still speculating why it crashed right?) if itis 206 had IFR capability we would not be having this discussion other then the UK regulated themselves out if one engine IFR even though you are saying it was not the engine that caused it but the lack of IFR capability? Right?

[Check 6]

Just a few comments as the company is based at my local airport. This isn't exactly a "mom and pop" operation. They have about 35 employees with multiple jet aircraft and the accident B206 and an Agusta 109.

I suspect that the 109 may not be flying as the mishap pilot had a mishap taxiing at night on his ramp and put the tail rotor into some bushes. He neglected to report the mishap to the FAA and NTSB but they found out anyway.

Hoke Smith (68) was a very experienced pilot.

SK Jets has had a contract with Mayo Clinic in JAX to support their transplant program for a few years. This includes not only their helicopters but also their LearJets for more distant flights. As what was stated previously, this is not an EMS or HEMS operation, but a charter operation contracted to fly the transplant teams and organs.

The weather Jacksonville weather was 700 overcast but I don't know what the vis. was.

To make this tragic accident worse a needy patient did not receive the heart.

[EN48]

And the airframe age makes no difference at all.


I dont buy this. As someone who has purchased/owned a number of aircraft over the last 30+ years and conducted even more logbook and prepurchase inspections, I believe that it is often very difficult to get an accurate picture of the true condition of an aircraft that is as old as the accident 206 in this case. A 35 year old aircraft will most likely have had multiple owners and pilots, and multiple maintenance shops. The written records are often sketchy or incomplete. Detecting abuse and substandard maintenance is not easy. An exception would be an aircraft that has had one owner and consistent maintenance to a high standard by a single shop (or something close to this). While it is possible that an older aircraft has been consistently operated and maintained to a high standard, I have yet to see such an aircraft in practice. Some may be comfortable with using an older aircraft on higher risk missions. I am not.

[ShyTorque]

So Shytorque we are speculating why it crashed. You seem to be saying it crashed because it had but one engine and if it had two the pilot and passenger would have still been alive? (or this flight occurred in the UK)

You might be speculating but I'm not. I'll wait for the accident report, thanks.

No, total rubbish. I've not said that the number of engines or geographical location was the cause, you've made that up. I have no idea why this accident occurred. My discussion has revolved around the differences in legislation between CAA and FAA and the history and reasoning behind the UK standpoint of not allowing single engined, and by definition VFR only, helicopter charters by night.

FYI, Regarding engines, I've absolutely nil personal objection to singles being operated under IFR in IMC provided they are properly equipped (been there, done that, used to be allowed in UK). I've been flying turbine engined rotary for a living since 1977, both single and twins, and never suffered any engine failure at all. A few I've had to shut down at short notice, in IMC as it happens (e.g. chip lights, oil overtemp), but no actual sudden failure. However, as someone else has mentioned, two engines isn't the real issue, it's the systems and redundancy that go with two engines that needs to be borne in mind.

Gomer pilot has it in one: However, there is no way to break even, much less make a profit, using twin-engine two-pilot helicopters. And profit is the overriding issue, make no mistake about that.

This is exactly why the UK authority stepped in and legislated VFR singles out of the night flying charter market. The market could not self regulate. As I said in a previous post, if regulations level the playing field then the end result is that the price of the job goes up. It's then up to the customer to decide if it's worth it or not.

[before landing check list]

So, it is possible in the UK to have VFR only multis? Not likely they exist but is it the multi part that makes it legal to fly VFR at night or is it the equipment and the trained pilots? How is the law in the UK written?

[Bladecrack]

So, it is possible in the UK to have VFR only multis? Not likely they exist but is it the multi part that makes it legal to fly VFR at night or is it the equipment and the trained pilots? How is the law in the UK written?

Yes there are many VFR only twins in use in the UK, and it is primarily the level of equipment (duplicated systems, A/P etc tend to be fitted to ME helicopters) and pilot quals that allow IFR/IMC & night public transport.

Note: you can still fly single engine helicopter privately at night in the UK, just not for public transport.

BC

[ShyTorque]

BLCL, All those factors are part of the equation for operating IFR in helicopters in the UK.

If a twin engined helicopter doesn't meet the criteria for IFR flight in any way then it would be limited to VFR ops only.

You can look it all up here (I wish you good luck with finding your way round it, btw ;) ):

CAP 393: Air Navigation: The Order and the Regulations | Publications | CAA (http://www.caa.co.uk/application.aspx?catid=33&pagetype=65&appid=11&mode=detail&id=226)

[Matari]

EN48,

Don't want to sidetrack this interesting thread, but Gomer Pyle is right: the airframe age makes no difference at all.

Keep in mind that the only component remaining from 1976 may well have been the Bell nameplate attached to main shell structure, containing the cockpit, bathtub, rear seats and roof structure.

The remaining airframe components could have all been purchased new yesterday, for all we know.

The investigation will reveal if the airframe and powerplant components were maintained per OEM and FAA regs. But a 1976 ship does not by any stretch of the definition, mean it is an old "beater."

Again, this fact has nothing to do with the suitability of the Bell 206 for single pilot night VRF; which is another subject altogether.

[puntosaurus]

Before Landing Check List.

So, it is possible in the UK to have VFR only multis? Not likely they exist but is it the multi part that makes it legal to fly VFR at night or is it the equipment and the trained pilots? How is the law in the UK written?

It's all of the above. To save you a trawl through the entirety of UK legislation the Air Navigation Order (2009) defines the Performance Classes in Part 33, the equipment requirements in Schedules 4 & 5 and the licensing requirements in Schedule 7. The restriction on singles at night for public transport comes from the Air Navigation (General) Regulations of 2006 (Schedule 2).

[ShyTorque]

Regarding minimum crew; an excerpt from UK's CAP393:

Pilots required on public transport flights by helicopters of 5700kg or less
46 (1) Subject to paragraph (2), a helicopter registered in the United Kingdom must carry at least two pilots as members of its flight crew if it:
(a) is flying for the purpose of public transport;
(b) has a maximum total weight authorised of 5700kg or less; and
(c) is flying in circumstances where the commander is required to comply with the Instrument Flight Rules or is flying at night on a special VFR flight.

(2) A helicopter described in paragraph (1) is not required to carry two pilots if it:
(a) is equipped with an autopilot with altitude hold and heading mode which is
serviceable on take-off;
(b) is equipped with such an autopilot even though before take-off the autopilot is found to be unserviceable, if the helicopter flies in accordance with arrangements approved by the CAA; or
(c) is flying by day and remains clear of cloud and with the surface in sight.

As mentioned before, VFR by night in UK doesn't exist. So two pilots must be carried by night in a non-autopilot equipped helicopter, irrespective of the number of engines it has.

The "floppy sticked" police helicopter I flew ten years ago would no longer be allowed to operate for that purpose by night because we could not carry two pilots.

[before landing check list]

If a twin engined helicopter doesn't meet the criteria for IFR flight in any way then it would be limited to VFR ops only.

You can look it all up here (I wish you good luck with finding your way round it, btw ):

CAP 393: Air Navigation: The Order and the Regulations | Publications | CAA

Thanks ShyTQ for shedding some light on this.

[Devil 49]

First, this was NOT an EMS flight. Nor was the flight transporting the transplant team Minnesota to Florida. The accident flight was a charter that happened to be a helicopter night flight. US HEMS has no bearing on this event, other than a few coincidental points: there were medical types on board a helicopter which crashed at night. Yes, I believe there's an issue inside US HEMS that results in a night accident rate about 4 times greater than our daytime rate. Perhaps the issues I see contributing to the problem were factors in this accident. Perhaps not.

I've not heard any mention that this was an NVG flight. I've been flying helos at night since 1968, my opinion is that aided night vision is magnitudes of order safer than unaided in spite of the hassles the equipment brings. The biggest single difference between day and night operations is being able to see...

There's nothing to indicate an engine failure, how does the fact that this was a single have any bearing? Because Great Britain's meteorology, transportation infrastructure, population density and culture require such-and-such to do this, that and the other thing? St Augustine, FL has very little in common with the British Isles.

I'm wondering why the transplant crew were being transported by helicopter from a quaint old village like St Augustine, which has no airline service, to a city, Gainesville, which has scheduled airline service? To substitute a 30 minute helicopter flight for a 20 minute cab ride?
How did the transplant team get to St Augustine?
How much notification and how long was the planning period for the helicopter pilot? What was his schedule, where was everybody in the sleep cycle?

[ShyTorque]

Irrespective of where the accident(s) occur, and how many engines the helicopter has, appreciation of human performance and limitations holds the main key to safe night operations.

However, if the industry will not self regulate out of concern for lost profits and the FAA regulators cannot/will not regulate because of pressure from the industry (as has been claimed in this discussion here) then nothing will change until the customer decides enough is enough.

[SASless]

nothing will change until the customer decides enough is enough.

Well now Shy....have we not applied that same bit of wisdom to the UK CAA and its costly fees and bureaucratic delays?

How many more operators have to go out of business over there due to the sheer cost of compliance with all the rules and regs you folks suffer under? How many aspiring young folks will have to find non-aviation employment before the dream to fly dies in the UK?

As the CAA is required to turn a profit....and how does a guvmint operation ever do that realistically....do you think there will ever be a way to turn the situation around in the UK where aviation prospers witout the burden of expense you suffer from currentl?.

At least we see the entire population as being "Users" of the Aviation Infrastructure and thus support it with Tax Revenues so the costs are spread over a very large number of people rather than a small number as the UK does.

Point the finger this way....and be prepared to hear an opposing view point.

One can work in the US Helicopter industry a life time and do so safely....despite the negative influences and factors that one encounters.

If you remember your own posts about the "Old Days".....despite all the regulatory changes and other restrictions placed upon operations in the UK...the accident statistics are still about the same as for equivalent US operations. So what have you actually gained?

[squib66]

NTSB Preliminary

NTSB Identification: ERA12MA122
Nonscheduled 14 CFR Part 135: Air Taxi & Commuter
Accident occurred Monday, December 26, 2011 in Green Cove Springs, FL
Aircraft: BELL 206B, registration: N5016M
Injuries: 3 Fatal.

This is preliminary information, subject to change, and may contain errors. Any errors in this report will be corrected when the final report has been completed.

On December 26, 2011, at 0554 eastern daylight time, a Bell 206B, N5016M, operated by SK Logistics, d.b.a. SK Jets, collided with terrain while maneuvering near Green Cove Springs, Florida. The certificated airline transport pilot and 2 passengers (a doctor and a medical technician) were fatally injured. The on-demand air taxi flight was conducted under the provisions of 14 Code of Federal Regulations Part 135. Night instrument meteorological conditions prevailed and no flight plan was filed for the planned flight to Shands Cair Heliport (63FL), Gainesville, Florida. The flight originated from Mayo Clinic Heliport (6FL1), Jacksonville, Florida, about 0537.

According to representatives of the Mayo Clinic Hospital, Jacksonville, Florida, the flight was contracted by the hospital to carry a doctor and a medical technician to Shands Hospital, Gainesville, Florida, for the purpose of procuring an organ for transplantation. The flight was then to return to the Mayo Clinic Hospital with the procured organ. The flight did not arrive at Shands Hospital and was reported overdue by a Mayo Clinic Hospital representative, which activated local search and rescue operations. The wreckage was located about 1000 in a remote wooded area by the Jacksonville Sheriff's Department Aviation Unit.

According to preliminary radar and communication data from the Federal Aviation Administration, the helicopter departed 6FL1 to the southwest, flying a track slightly south and east of a direct course to 63FL. The pilot contacted Jacksonville Approach at 0549 to inquire about the status of restricted airspace. At 0550, the controller replied the restricted areas were inactive, and the pilot acknowledged the transmission. No further communications were received from the helicopter. During the enroute portion of the flight, the helicopter's altitude varied between 200 and 700 feet mean sea level (msl). The last radar target was recorded at 0553:23, about 1 mile north of the accident site, indicating an altitude of 300 feet msl.

A debris field was observed which originated with several trees that were severed by breaks at descending altitudes. The debris field was approximately 320 feet long, 70 feet wide, extending on a magnetic course of 172 degrees. The initial tree strike was at an estimated height of 30 feet above the ground, which severed an approximately 50-foot tall tree, at a ground elevation of 118 feet msl. The main wreckage was located about 175 feet along the debris path and approximately 80 percent of the wreckage was consumed during a postcrash fire. Sections of the skids, tailboom, main rotor blades, and engine were identified. The airframe and engine were retained for further examination.

The accident site was located about 12 miles northeast of Palatka Municipal Airport (28J), Palatka, Florida. The recorded weather at 28J, at 0554, was: wind 070 degrees at 5 knots; visibility 5 miles in mist; overcast ceiling at 400 feet; temperature 17 degrees C; dew point 15 degrees C; altimeter 30.21 inches Hg.

[SASless]

During the enroute portion of the flight, the helicopter's altitude varied between 200 and 700 feet mean sea level (msl). The last radar target was recorded at 0553:23, about 1 mile north of the accident site, indicating an altitude of 300 feet msl.


The accident site was located about 12 miles northeast of Palatka Municipal Airport (28J), Palatka, Florida. The recorded weather at 28J, at 0554, was: wind 070 degrees at 5 knots; visibility 5 miles in mist; overcast ceiling at 400 feet; temperature 17 degrees C; dew point 15 degrees C; altimeter 30.21 inches Hg.

Now if I wuz computer smart...I would hit Google Earth....find that point on the ground....and draw a 5 sm circle around the point....and start counting light sources....farm houses and the like....to get an idea of just how dark it was.

a Bell 206B... collided with terrain while maneuvering near Green Cove Springs, Florida.

I wonder what they mean by "maneuvering"?

[Art of flight]

Seems a lot of these cfit (if that's what happened here) collisions, occur in met conditions that to the human senses are 'IMC', just that we have this inbuilt desire to continue to want/hope to see things outside the cockpit to remain VMC especially if we haven't planned to fly IFR. The purist can argue that 5 mile vis and 400' cloudbase are VMC, the counter argument would be that it was at night, over unlit terrain with no/few geographical features that could be seen, no horizon and without NVS so would need to be flown by reference almost entirely to instruments.

Did the aircraft have an autopilot and nav system at all?

[ShyTorque]

From the accident report: Night instrument meteorological conditions prevailed and no flight plan was filed for the planned flight to Shands Cair Heliport (63FL), Gainesville, Florida.

I note that Gainesville Regional airport lies 7 road miles/ 16 minutes drive away from the intended destination, according to Google Earth. Gainesville Airport is advertised as open 24/24 and appears to have an ILS on runway 11. The surface wind was easterly at 5 kts.

This flight appears to have been planned and attempted under "Night VFR" with a local 400 foot cloudbase. The sole crew member was apparently a highly experienced, 68 year old chief helicopter pilot.

[Thomas coupling]

"Manouevring"?
Cloudbase of 400', DP/OAT very close - mist coming off the trees. No visual references to speak of.
He was looking for somewhere to land or something to give him a bearing, when at 100+ feet he clipped a tree and that was that.

Avoidable.
Unnecessary.
Tragic.

[topendtorque]

The sole crew member was apparently a highly experienced, 68 year old chief helicopter pilot. and I think I heard a returned decorated individual. trying his heart out for someone else with heart problems, where obviously time to complete is usually a short window.

very sad.

[homonculus]

Very sad yes but

'where obviously time to complete is usually a short window.'

is wrong. Harvesting organs is not urgent and donors will wait. If this poor chap had been put under time restraints by some doctor, nurse or administrator with no aviation experience it just makes the loss than much more poiniant. And reinforces the need to separate medical go:no go decisions from aviation ones. My organisation has always operated a chinese wall where the pilot knows very little about the reason for the flight and the doctor has no say whatsoever over the pilot. Sure, it isnt always absolute, but we do avoid 90% of the pressure on our pilots and it engendours an understanding amongst medical crew that the pilot's decision is his and his alone. Oh, and they know if they even joke about it they are history.

[tecpilot]

homonculus is right,

transplants are not time critical in the same way like HEMS. They take the organs planned and in coordination with the receiver hospitals, but mostly at night. Usually they have more free operation rooms and medics at night and the daylight business can go in the normal way. Thats the simple reason for night transplant flights.

The problem is, they don't ask the flight crews about the weather. We are just service providers. Simple call and we have to come.

[SASless]

The weather in the area at the time of the crash was reported to be 400/5sm and "Mist"....with a slight stirring wind...temp and dewpoint within 2 degrees.

That Sports Fans is not Night VFR weather for cross country flying in any helicopter.

[tecpilot]

There is no reason to risk just a single life of a flight crew member for such planned transplants.

[ShyTorque]

SASless, no of course not. That has been the whole point of my contributrions to these discussions about rotary accidents. So that is why I pointed out this:

I note that Gainesville Regional airport lies 7 road miles/ 16 minutes drive away from the intended destination, according to Google Earth. Gainesville Airport is advertised as open 24/24 and appears to have an ILS on runway 11. The surface wind was easterly at 5 kts.

A suitably qualified pilot flying a suitably equipped IFR helicopter could have chosen to do the return flight under IFR.

To clarify for the hard of understanding, I'd like to re-iterate, yet again, it's got NOTHING to do with the number of engines, unless you consider the OEI situation, of course. But these days the latter isn't what's repeatedly causing these accidents.

[JimL]

(I put this in the HEMS thread but it applies equally here. Rather than construct a new text, below is contents of an email on the subject sent to the Rapporteur of the ICAO HEMS WG in 2009.)

In my view the issue is not so much about the ability to fly in IFR (for which the certification criteria exists) but one of addressing the issue of flight in VFR when it is no longer possible (or really difficult) to "...be able to see outside the cockpit, to control the aircraft's attitude, navigate and avoid obstacles and other aircraft".

My main comment would be that problems are mostly associated with reduced visibility and, not necessarily, a descending cloud base. This leads to two additional problems:

1. How is visibility measured in flight (I don’t know the answer); and

2. What if the cloud is descending generally – executing the 180º will not result in a flight back into a clear area.

This is why I emphasized that the decision is never presented to the pilot in clear and unambiguous terms. On the other hand, if the aircraft is well equipped – either with two pilots or with an autopilot (but in any case with some form of augmentation); there is a buffer both in height and in control.

My view has always been that although Parts 27/29 have a clause that states in 2x.141(c):

The rotorcraft must: (c) Have any additional characteristics required for night or instrument operations, if certification for those kinds of operation is requested. Requirements for helicopter instrument flight are contained in appendix B.

It is well known that there are no enforced requirements for certification associated with night operations (or operations in a reduced visual cue environment by day). This is not such an issue in those States where aircraft used for night HEMS are twins certificated under Appendix B of Part 27/29, but in the USA where singles with no additional (stability) requirements are used, too much reliance is placed upon FAR 135.207:
Sec. 135.207 - VFR: Helicopter surface reference requirements.

No person may operate a helicopter under VFR unless that person has visual surface reference or, at night, visual surface light reference, sufficient to safely control the helicopter

which, in an unlit area, relies upon the use of NVG to meet the visual surface reference requirements.

Although the objective of the rule does state that visual cues must be “sufficient to safely control the helicopter”, we all know that this (subjective judgement) is totally reliant upon the other part of the equation - i.e. the stability of the helicopter. Whilst that stability is addressed by Appendix B to Parts 27/29 for any aircraft that is certificated for flight in IMC, it is not for most singles (and even some twins).

The handing qualities of the helicopter and the usable cue environment are inversely proportionate to each other. As the quality of handling increases, the requirement for visual cues reduces. At the extreme (with an auto-pilot), the only cues that are required, are those which provide for obstacle avoidance (not unimportant but of a secondary order).

This is not a message that is usually well received by regulators, or operators, as it really points to the necessity to address stability in a reduced visual cue environment – particularly at night. The traditional answer to this dilemma is to place a requirement, at night, for twins (knowing that most will come with certification for flight in IMC) - this is the European solution; in addition, in some States (the UK for one), airspace at night is designated IFR; which leads to the (JAR) requirement for an auto-pilot for single-pilot operations.

Night IFR in the UK does not mandate the full set of rules contained in ICAO Annex 2 but instead a quasi-night-VFR regime exists that permits operations below 3,000ft to be conducted much as they are for day VFR.

No simple answers but, if States wish to address the main issues, stability is key; it does not have to be twins, Appendix B to Parts 27/29 can be used for singles.

It is only when the issue of stability has been addressed that EVS or SVS come into play; they address (the secondary issue mentioned above of) obstacle avoidance but can never replace the necessity for good handling qualities.

Jim

[Exo.]

It might seem fortunate that the organ was being picked up from Gainesville, and so the transplant recipient may well still have received it at some point...

I had a look and think the NTSB prelim has the location wrong, as 12Statute North East of Palatka Municipal is the St. John's River.

I'm guessing the site is north west, which tallies up with the other notes about being south and slightly east of direct track - something I'd perhaps put down to the pilot knowing the area and looking for lower terrain (the elevations are 20m (63') higher on the direct track than a point at Georges Lake (elevation 35m (118') amsl). Assuming I had more background about pilot and the conditions he was directly experiencing.

There is one small town 4sm to the southwest, and little else, with higher ground to the northwest, and the small lake, which would have been passed just ahead and to the pilot's right hand side.

[Art of flight]

Spot on Jim, sadly you can post that response every few months in reaction to the next (very predictable) event of this type. You have provided the reason these things happen and other posters on here have stated why it won't change (in the USA) so we'll sit back and wait for the next one in a few days, weeks or months....

Shame is that as pilots we know the risks and limitations of both ourselves and the equipment, our passengers haven't a clue.

[ShyTorque]

I had a look and think the NTSB prelim has the location wrong, as 12Statute North East of Palatka Municipal is the St. John's River.

I agree, I looked up the quoted locations using GE, and it didn't make much sense.

[SASless]

Earlier a location near Turkey Branch Road, and Dynamite Road was given by local news folks....if my memory serves me correctly. Their description would be far more accurate than that of the NTSB's at this time I think.

I posted this earlier......

Hit Google Earth and search for "Dynamite Road, Palatka Florida" for a good view of the terrain over which this crash occurred. The cross road in the news report was given as being Turkey Branch Road with the crash site within about a mile of the interesection supposedly.