UK HEMS and NVGs

[MightyGem]

There's a rumour up this way that EASA/CAA have stopped the move towards the HEMS guys using goggles. Any truth in it?

[SASless]

If it was good enough for......well you get my point!:E





http://ts2.mm.bing.net/th?id=H.5029485203358653&pid=15.1

[MightyGem]

Afraid you've lost me there, SAS.

[Max Contingency]

I believe SASless is making reference to our CAA's attitude to progress.

"UK CAA we're not happy till you're not happy" :E

[SASless]

"If it was good enough for Wellington....".

[ec135driver]

There is no truth in that rumour.

EASA consider that Class 1 Performance profiles are incompatible with the wearing of NVG.

HEMS Operating bases are surveyed and lit, no NVGrequirement.

Hospitals are surveyed and lit, no NVG requirement.

HEMS Operating sites are not capable of PC1 due to the fact the obstacle environment is unknown and sites are estimated for size etc. Operations are PC2/3 and can be flown with NVG.

Effect on operations? Nil

My experience of the CAA is that they are constrained by JAR/EASA and not by any "in house" desire to see such operations curtailed.

[SASless]

EASA consider that Class 1 Performance profiles are incompatible with the wearing of NVG.

Care to explain that nugget of wisdom held by the folks at EASA?

Any Position Papers issued by the Bureaucrats at EASA where they stake out their position and justify what they are saying?

Norway EMS has been using NVG's since 2002.

Rotor & Wing Magazine :: NVG Certification Needs to be Quicker, Operators Agree at Helitech (http://www.aviationtoday.com/rw/public-service/EASA/NVG-Certification-Needs-to-be-Quicker-Operators-Agree-at-Helitech_80253.html#.UtadWXmfsoE)


How does "Night" and the inability of the Human being to see well in the dark....figure into all this?

When you say the Bases and Hospitals are lit.....what about all the surrounding areas that might be useful in the case of an Emergency Landing? Are they well lit too?

Are all the obstacles sticking up well lit and marked?

These "experts" at EASA/JAA/JAR/CAA......how much real time operatonal experience using NVG's do they have?

[AnFI]

How does Engine Off Landing work on NVG's - i imagine that it is slightly more challenging?

[SARWannabe]

Better than EOL at night without NVG :ok:

[ShyTorque]

Amazing thing is, you can flip NVGs up out of the way if you need to carry out a Class 1 take off or landing.

Even so, unrecce'd / ad hoc night landing sites are always going to be potentially risky, NVG or not. Wires being the major concern.

[Evalu8ter]

Transit flying between well lit HLS'? No real need for NVGs. Going to land in the bondu? Yep, I'll take my goggs please. I know the answer could be white light, but the head / goggles move a lot quicker than panning a BriteSun or ldg lamp. Plus, for nav assist, goggs are a big help and keep your head out of the cockpit more than thumbcrawling or watching a moving map.

NVGs are not a panacea but in concert with a FLIR/L3TV they add massively to SA at night.

If I may be a bit controversial, how much of the 'anti' brigade is driven by the non-ex mil trained aircrew? If NVGs began to be seen like an IR then it will place mil aircrew at an even bigger advantage when it comes to recruiting into these areas. I'm inclined to agree with SASLess that maybe the people opposing it are also reluctant to learn new tricks....or pay for it.

[MightyGem]

HEMS Operating sites are not capable of PC1 due to the fact the obstacle environment is unknown and sites are estimated for size etc.
All our Adhoc landings(mainly for casevacs) on goggles are required to be the standard helipad profile. We recce to ensure the site is big enough.

[chopper2004]

I remember attending a FAA brief during the Heli Expo 08 in Dallas. It was basically a Q and A for the operators.

One topic that came up was about the use NVGs, with the Feds explained the ins/outs certification / proposed rule making and amendments then the "anyone has questions?". There was a murmur and one operator got up and basically let their emotions out with the pretty much the words "people will die or are dying because of this rule". Then a couple of other folk joined in support.

Sure SAS can shed some light on what the Feds were restricting at the time?

[SASless]

Can anyone tell me what is incompatible with PC1 Profiles and the wearing of NVG's?

I seem to be missing something.....as having flown with NVG's and doing simple things like one skid landings on roof tops....slope landings....EOL's to a power recovery....OEI landings.....Simulated Engine failures on takeoff before and after TDP....and during landings before and after LDP....basically every maneuver that can be done without NVG's.....I fail to see what possible conflict there is....so what does the EASA CRATS know that so many of us fail to grasp?

The one thing I do know for sure....being able to see in the dark beats hell out of not being able to see in the dark.

The other thing I know for sure....once you use NVG's....you don't want to be without them in the Dark ever again. Quoting Uncle Si....."That is a Fact, Jack!".

[ec135driver]

Regarding EASA view on Class 1 Performance profiles and the certification of NVG have a look here if you are so inclined.

EASA - 7th Rotorcraft Symposium (http://easa.europa.eu/events/events.php?startdate=04-12-2013&page=7th_Rotorcraft_Symposium)

Look in the ZIP files for a presentation "Helicopter Performance with NVG" by
Ray White, Helicopter Flight Test Engineer

[Thomas coupling]

http://easa.europa.eu/events/docs/2013/12/05/Presentations.zip

[ec135driver]

Cheers TC, I knew it had to be possible!

[Thomas coupling]

NVG use becoming widespread for Police and HEMS.
Airworthiness Requirements and certification well understood .
Operational requirements not so well standardised as yet.
Some NAA’s requiring Cat A for HEMS.

Cat A is an airworthiness concept .
2 fundamental aspects:
Performance capability .
Engineering standard.

Aircraft can cope with an engine failure at any stage of the flight:
Carry out a rejected take off if the engine fails early .
Land within the distance available .
Continue the take off if the engine fails after decision point.
Miss any obstacles within T.O. flight path .
Balk an OEI approach .
Carry out an OEI landing .
Implies a surveyed site available.
Satisfactory OEI power available .
Correctly determined WAT (weight/altitude/temperature).
Acceptable pilot workload.
Visual cue environment .

Night approvals .
Site assumed to be “properly” surveyed and illuminated airfields/helipads etc .
Performance Class 1 has the same objective as Category A .
Aircraft can cope with an engine failure at any stage of the flight .
Requirement to operate Class 1 (or 2 or 3) is regulated at an Ops level.
If Ops demand Class 1 performance, this can only be delivered by an aircraft with a full Category A approval .
NAA’s have required Class 1 for HEMS operations.
STC applicants have requested Cat A approval to be included in an NVG approval .
Assumption that, as RFM Cat A supplement does not prohibit NVG, it is automatically approved .

DO275 NVIS MOPS
1.6.2 NVIS Operational Assumptions.
1. NVG enhanced vision is not equivalent to daytime vision.
2. The pilot can maintain VFR flight in the event NVG imagery is lost or degraded.
3. The NVG does not provide adequate imagery under all lighting conditions, scene contrast, and atmospheric conditions.
Airworthiness standard is found in FAR/CS29 MG16
The primary tenet of the use of NVG in Civil flight operations is that they are an aid to night VFR .
NVG are not intended to expand the operational envelope or operational capabilities.

MG16 states in respect of Cert basis:
(3) Certification Basis. The NVIS lighting design, not including the NVG, must comply with the same certification basis as that of the aircraft. The NVIS lighting design should not adversely affect other design approvals (e.g., Category A and IFR).
Note: Category A profiles are not certificated for use with NVGs unless evaluating the profiles with NVGs. Other flight operations that require special training and approval (such as agricultural and external load operations) are beyond the scope of this MG. Approval of such operations with NVIS will require additional coordination with both aircraft certification and aircraft operations civil authorities to determine the scope of the effort .
Anything done with NVGs should be also be capable of being done without NVGs.
It is quite unlikely that a Cat A T/O and landing was done in the basic certification on an unimproved site
If an operator decides to perform Cat A T/O and landing to an unimproved site, this site should satisfy the conditions of what was done in certification. If not, he is not guaranteed the Cat A results and he is doing “lookalike” Cat A profile.
This ‘lookalike ‘ profile should have been tested during the EASA evaluation (at least while doing STCs) with and without NVGs.
Cat A under NVG is not automatically accepted, just because it is not specifically prohibited .
MG16 identifies need for dedicated investigation
NVG degrades external FoV .
Cat A is very dependent on external cues .
Cat A/NVG could be acceptable to fully approved and illuminated airfields & helipads .
Flight testing at limiting conditions necessary to ensure that degraded visual environment is not detrimental .

Ad hoc (“Unimproved”) sites
Not appropriate for Perf Class 1.
Not formally surveyed for distance, surface qualities, obstacle environment.
Illumination may not be to acceptable standards for night ops.
Ad hoc illumination using e.g. police car headlights is inadequate.
Ops rule does not mandate Class 1 for HEMS. Class 1 required where possible.

Ad hoc sites
Not appropriate for airworthiness Cat A.
External visual cue environment using goggles well below that assumed for normal unaided vision.
Field of view greatly reduced.
Low level of external illumination means goggles are essential for conduct of operation.
Goggle failure at critical point could be catastrophic .

Acceptable procedures for ad hoc sites
No requirement to mandate a take off procedure for Cat B.
Should remain clear of HV curve.
Operator can define best practice.
Cat A take off procedure is known to remain clear of HV .
Cat A procedure is best for dealing with an engine failure .
OK to fly Cat A procedures and profiles .

This does not guarantee Class 1 Perf
Class 1 operations can only be performed by Cat A certificated helicopters.
Cat A is limited by distance available for rejected or continued take offs.
Performance margins and visual cue quality are directly related .
This assumes that you can see where you are going, including at night .
Lack of a formal prohibition (of anything) in a Flight Manual does not mean that it is permitted by default.

Cat A, and Class 1, could be acceptable to a correctly illuminated airfield, but a formal flight investigation would be needed .
Operations to ad-hoc, unimproved, sites would rely on the use of NVG’s.
This is at variance with the basic assumption for civil NVG approvals – no credit to be taken for the goggles .
Cat A, and hence Class 1, approval using goggles not acceptable to such sites .
Cat A TO and Landing profiles acceptable for Cat B & Class 2/3 operations.

[SASless]

SAR.....doing One Skids was part of the task guarding Nuclear Weapons....done in an aircraft equipped with machine-guns.....not Public Transport.

If you cannot grasp the fact that NVG's greatly enhance the safety of Night Flight and that in parts of the World we operate on a basis of doing the mission as safely as possible then there is scant hope of having any kind of rational discussion.

You will note that in the current Thread about the EMS Fatal Crash I have made no criticism of the Crew. I did post saying small power lines with Poles/Pylons hidden within the woodbine were very hard to see and posed great hazards.

My post here clearly states I have flown a twin engined helicopter using NVG's and did every maneuver done without NVG's.....with NVG's to include some that are a darn sight harder to do than those done by an EMS Operator operating under Public Transport Standards and Procedures.

So it would appear to me you are just trying to be snotty over something you did not agree with in the past.

You are quite out of order.....personal insult is not the way to win your argument.....in fact it merely means you lose as you destroy your credibility as my response will be to reject your rudeness and skip anything you hoped to say about the issue.

[SASless]

EC,

Reading through Ray White's presentation....it strikes me as being a telling discussion on how "Rules" once written seem to take on a life of their own and are never amended or repealed to include situations not considered when the original Rule was crafted.

We all know RFM's can have different forms....with the Performance Section and/or Limitations Sections having restrictions on how the aircraft is operated but with one Section being Mandatory and the other not.

Ray talks of a Failure of the NVG's at the Critical Point of the Maneuver and insufficient visual reference being available to complete the maneuver. Yet, he accepts the notion that NVG's are to be an aid and not alter the conditions under which the aircraft is to be operated. Which makes me wonder why you can do the maneuver without NVG's to begin with.....but cannot with a NVG failure and reverting to your MK 1 eyes....if the conditions are the same for each situation?

I think even Ray is getting confused.

He spends a fair bit of time talking about Certification of the Aircraft, the RFM, and requirements for Cat A/Class One Performance and Take Off/Landing Profiles....and shows how they create difficulties for getting NVG use approval by the various NAA's. It seems the NAA's are more prone to vary from existing policies re landing site requirements for the Class 1 profiles but seem to get very reluctant to make any variation for NVG's. The focus upon NVG's failing at a critical point in the Profile seems very important to the NAA's but in my opinion those concerns are excessive.

I can think of some other failures at the Critical Points that would be far more dangerous than a Goggle Failure. The Safety Enhancement of NVG use for all phases of flight far exceed any additional risks they might pose should they fail at the critical point following an engine failure.....as we are talking about a very small risk of the engine failing to begin with.....and then adding the very slight chance of having a Goggle failure at the same time. I am not a Statistician by any means.....but that seems like a very weak argument against using NVG's.

The concept of requiring Class 1 Performance is another topic that needs to be argued......as again.....Engine Failures are pretty darn remote and present a very small hazard compared to the most common killers of EMS Crews who fly at night.

Weather, Wires and Obstructions, and CFIT are the killers of EMS Crews.....not engine failures.

[JimL]

Very little stated by Ray in his presentation is new - it is a rehash of many 'CAT A'/'PC1' presentations in the past.

What appears to be the cogent point is Ray's statement that CAT A profiles cannot be flown with NVG unless they have been evaluated under those circumstances. Unless this is subject to a policy change, it will add a real expense to manufacturer's flight testing regimes which might have to include flight in 'rain', 'snow', 'low visibility' etc. Perhaps a more pragmatic view needs to be applied i.e. the presence of lighting.

The first thing without dispute is that operating to a PC1 heliport at night (with all of the associated lighting from Annex 14) with NVG must be acceptable under the proviso that operations with NVIS is an extension to VFR Operations under all circumstances - i.e. the pilot can come under the goggles at any time and meet the visual requirements for the manoeuvre.

The second thing without dispute is that PC1 can only be conducted to a landing site which meets all the conditions for PC1 operations - i.e. the site has been surveyed; the mass is sufficient to satisfy the RTODR/TODRH; and, obstacle clearances will be met.

Ray is a little behind with the requirements for a HEMS Operating Site (the ad hoc site or scene); it no longer says 'PC1 as far as possible' (which is oxymoronic) but PC2 (with the associated approvals for exposure).

Night Flight with NVG is one of the least problematic issue EASA has to address. More important perhaps is the lack of any airworthiness requirements for stability and control under circumstances where flight is being conducted under VFR and the visual cue environment is not sufficient to permit control without reference to instruments, or obstacle to be seen such that they can be avoided.

Jim

[SASless]

Jim,

If one adds NVG's....using the existing weather minima....and visibility minima....thus providing the ability to "see" those external cues by which to control the aircraft.....including landing and take off at ALL sites approved by the NAA....where is the problem in getting Approval for that?

You pose a straw man argument when you attempt to shift this discussion to Stability and Visual Flight without sufficient Visual Cues thus requiring the use of instruments to control the aircraft.

The discussion extant is about the use of NVG's for EMS Operations.

The discussion about flying VFR in IMC Conditions is an altogether different argument.

The only correlation I see is that by the NAA's approving the use of NVG's for all phases of flight especially Landing.....those cues shall (imperative tense used on purpose) be improved, enhanced, and far more plentiful thus negating the need for what we all know would prove to be a decades long pursuit of new certifications of new aircraft and Modification of existing aircraft.

NVG's mount to a helmet and only require a compatible lighting system which is technology already in common use.

Surely, this is not that complicated a thing for reasonable, logical, and open minded people who seek to make easy, quick, and effective enhancements to night flying safety and expand the operational capability of a valuable asset such as EMS Helicopters.

In the UK or some parts of Europe where a speedy retrieval of injured and gravely ill patients is not a concern....perhaps there is no need for the capability.

In the United States....we see it differently.....and have fought this battle in the past and now the FAA is finally coming to the table on this. They came kicking and screaming....but they came.

Sounds to me like you folks are entering that stage of business where just like GPS....you will have to shed the "old way" and begin to embrace new technology.

Perhaps the NAA's should take a position more along the lines of "How can we make this happen?" Rather than the current attitude of throwing up every obstacle possible.

My impression of the EASA system is it seeks Utopia where every risk is eliminated.....no matter the cost. That is never going to work as Aviation is all about Risk....managed, controlled, acceptance of reasonable risk.

We will never see the end of aircraft crashing.....we just have to find a way to improve the chances of that not happening as best we can.

Upon consideration....perhaps the EASA way is best.....if no one flies....no one dies.....except for the Casualties on the side of the highway waiting for ground transport.

[MightyGem]

So, given the content of TC's last post, is NVG flight for HEMS; a) going ahead, b) not going ahead, or c) they are still trying to decide, because I can't figure it out from reading that. :O

[ropes away]

Mighty, Night HEMS using NVGs was approved last summer and I have been using them on HEMS missions since then. Bit pointless in the summer but definitely proving useful now.

[ec135driver]

MG - HEMS with NVIS will continue in the UK

[SASless]

Can you use them in all phases of flight in the UK?

[ropes away]

Pretty much from take off to landing. Cannot say too much as I am sure one of my many bosses will shoot me for divulging commercially sensitive stuff. Having flown on NVG in the military and some years later now in HEMS, I feel a lot safer flying the profiles we do. Goes without saying both very different types of flying but deinately not taking anything for granted.

[Thomas coupling]

ropes away: Phase 1 and phase 2...no? 500' demarcation line?

[MightyGem]

Night HEMS using NVGs was approved last summer and I have been using them on HEMS missions since then.
Heard from another AA pilot last night that they have to revert to white light at 150' to get around the EASA/PC1 problem.

[Turkeyslapper]

Heard from another AA pilot last night that they have to revert to white
light at 150' to get around the EASA/PC1 problem.


Why would you not keep the goggs on below 150' rather "revert" to white light - I am assuming you mean degoggling?

We are flying in all kinds of environments (low cultural lighting areas, urban areas et al) and we can always use goggles (with white light) if we so choose - so you you get the best of both worlds being the advantages of NVG coupled with good peripheral cues coming from the white light (provided your goggle relief is ok.) No problems.

Is this stuff being made overly difficult ? Just a simple guy I am!

Cheers

[SASless]

Sounds to me like the PC1 "Problem" is a stupid assed Rule that has no basis in reality.....just another bureaucratic edict handed down and swallowed whole by the Operators.

I suppose there is an appeal process or some way to challenge it.....isn't there?

Can someone calculate the probability of both an Engine Failure and a Goggle Failure at a "Critical Point" of a Landing?

It would be the same for a Takeoff I would assume.

I do believe we are talking about a very damn small chance of that event ever happening at all....much less it resulting in the loss of an aircraft....even if that would happen as a result of said goggle failure.

Turning on a White Light, a Landing Light or Night Sun, does not harm the usefulness of NVG's.....or operating around ground based white light. Modern NVG's work fine with minimal "Wash Out".

[Aucky]

As 135driver said PC1 is not required at ad-hoc HEMS operating sites, so whilst CAT A profiles are flown where possible, the goggles can be worn to the ground.

Where PC1 is required when flying into a hospital pad (lit), or HEMS operating base (lit), the approach can be safely made off goggles.

[MightyGem]

As 135driver said PC1 is not required at ad-hoc HEMS operating sites,
Is that because it's seen as "saving life"?

[Aucky]

PC1 operations are not possible to an ad-hoc site due to the unsurveyed nature (possible hazards, uncertain surface, no lights, estimated size etc) yet EASA NAA's require PC1 for HEMS. This would prohibit practically all HEMS site landings, so PC2 is acceptable at HEMS operating sites.

[SASless]

EASA NAA's require PC1 for HEMS. This would prohibit practically all HEMS site landings, so PC2 is acceptable at HEMS operating sites.

If PC1 is required by EASA NAA's for HEMS......just how does on then operate PC2.

[Aucky]

From EASA Part-SPA: (http://www.easa.europa.eu/agency-measures/docs/agency-decisions/2013/2013-020-R/04%20Part-SPA%20(AMC-GM)_Amdt1-Supplementary%20document%20to%20ED%20Decision%202013-020-R.pdf)
In simple terms there are three areas in HEMS operations where risk, beyond that allowed in Part-CAT and Part-ORO, are identified and related risks accepted:
(i) in the en-route phase, where alleviation is given from height and visibility rules;
(ii) at the accident site, where alleviation is given from the performance and size requirement; and
(iii) at an elevated hospital site in a congested hostile environment, where alleviation is given from the deck edge strike - providing elements of the CAT.POL.H.305 are satisfied.
In mitigation against these additional and considered risks, experience levels are set, specialist training is required (such as instrument training to compensate for the increased risk of inadvertent entry into cloud) and operation with two crew (two pilots, or one pilot and a HEMS technical crew member) is mandated. (HEMS crews and medical passengers are also expected to operate in accordance with good crew resource management (CRM) principles.)

[busdriver02]

These discussions are amusing, reminds me of hearing the old H-3 guys talk about taking their goggles off to air refuel because it was thought to be more dangerous.

[JimL]

There is no specific PC1 rule with respect to NVG, or vice versa; what is being discussed is an interpretation of operating practices by EASA 'Airworthiness Personnel'. It is not really clear why they have been asked for their opinion - particularly when the EASA opinion is no better than any other's (in the eye of the law).

Aucky has spelt it out exactly; the circumstances where PC1 is mandated is not in dispute, only the practice of using unlit heliports where PC1 is required.

Jim

[TeeS]

Hi JimL

Please excuse a deliberately contentious statement/question, it's in the hope of promoting discussion as much as anything.

The only times that European HEMS operations are required to perform to PC1 is when operating to a hospital site in a congested hostile environment (subject to aircraft certification) or at an elevated heliport.

Would you agree?

Cheers

TeeS

[JimL]

Hi Tees,

The regulations are in transition - from JAR-OPS to EASA OPS. During the final throes of the JAA a number of policy decisions were made that have found their way into the new regulation. For that reason (and for simplicity) it is probably better to look at what will be rather than what was.

In general, the application of the performance code for HEMS now mirrors that for CAT with two exceptions:

1. For a HEMS Operating Site (the scene) in a congested hostile environment (built-up area), PC2, with exposure, is permitted (if approval has been sought and given). At all other HEMS Operating Sites, there are no restrictions on performance.

2. Operations at a public interest site (a hospital at a congested hostile environment) are permitted with the mitigation specified.

In concert with all CAT (Part CAT), operations with exposure will have to meet the appropriate requirements including engine monitoring (for HEMS the approval process is simplified).

Operations to an elevated heliport (in any class) are permitted if there is no third party exposure. For example, operations to Battersea.

Under the circumstances being considered in this thread, PC1 would only be required when operating to a heliport in a congested hostile environment. Under all circumstances, a PC1 heliport would have to be fitted with such lights and visual aids that are prescribed by the State (for the moment Europe does not exercise competence on this matter).

The notion of operating PC1 (with a CAT A procedure) to an unimproved and unsurveyed site at night is risible (protection is imaginary). Flying a CAT A procedure at an unimproved site affords little protection; better that a risk-assessed procedure (for that site) which minimises exposure, is used.

Jim

[SASless]

JimL,

As English is my second language....American being my first.....am I correct to assume....


better that a risk-assessed procedure (for that site) which minimises exposure, is used.

....means that there must be a prior approval from EASA for every such landing site?

I am looking at this from the perspective of doing "Scene Flights".....landing at the sites of automobile crashes where folks are deemed needy of Helicopter Evacuation.

Is my perception correct......that under EASA Rules....only pre-selected and pre-approved landing sites are permissible?

Or....can the Fire Brigade block off a section of roadway or designate a cow pasture or clearing on the edge of the road as a landing site and the helicopter operate to that particular site using a pre=approved procedure?

Is it the procedure or the location that must be approved?

[Aucky]

am I correct to assume....
Quote:
better that a risk-assessed procedure (for that site) which minimises exposure, is used.
....means that there must be a prior approval from EASA for every such landing site?

SAS - I think you've taken a slight tangent. There is no prior approval required for each HEMS operating site (accident scene), except the overall HEMS approval that operators must have. Most landings are ad-hoc, unsurveyed, and assessed form overhead. I think JimL meant that as one cannot adhere to PC1 in an unimproved/unsurveyed site (sloped ground, uneven surface etc), flying the CAT A procedures doesn't offer the protection that it should. In some circumstances it might be safer, and is allowable under PC2 to deviate from the CAT A procedure and fly something which is more suitable (with ones own assessment of the site). Given the minimum daytime HEMS site size of 2Dx2D, and Night 2Dx4D, it might also be impossible to fly the CAT A procedure due to surrounding obstructions.

Is my perception correct......that under EASA Rules....only pre-selected and pre-approved landing sites are permissible?

No. Ad-hoc, unsurveyed landings are permissible and routinely carried out by day and night.

Or....can the Fire Brigade block off a section of roadway or designate a cow pasture or clearing on the edge of the road as a landing site and the helicopter operate to that particular site using a pre=approved procedure?

No need, so long as you have coordinated the stopping of traffic and the site is safe you can land

[jackjack08]

Hi


The HEMS "Technical Crew" title is upon us.


Does anyone know if the title will have an FTL scheme attached, in line with pilots FTL schemes or will the role operate in accordance with local working time directive guidance.


I can't seem to locate any info.

[TeeS]

Hi JJ8

The requirement for this is in CAT.GEN.MPA.100 and is 'a bit vague'. My understanding is that the method for this will be produced in future rule making tasks - possibly published in 2015 to be adopted in 2016 for HEMS.

Cheers

TeeS