Landing in public areas - no marshalling?

[Uplinker]

Hi folks, I am not a heli pilot, so I have searched for the answer to my question which is: Are helicopters allowed to land in public carparks, with no marshallers on the ground?

I presume they are, since an air ambulance, or it might have been a SAR, has just landed on our local car park, and there were no marshallers, nor a cordoned off area. However, they took no passenger on or off, so were not landing for an incident, nor was there any technical trouble, since after chatting to a few dog walkers, they took off again. I was too far away to go and ask myself.

I am not having a go but am just curious how a helicopter is allowed to land on a public area such as a car park without ground marshalling. Cars were driving in and out of the car park all the while, so it had not been closed. What if a car, dog, child, or adult, drove, ran or walked into the helicopter? I realise most people would stay clear but just wondering what the risks are and who would be liable and what the insurance position would be?

[helimutt]

there is usually a huge difference between a SAR machine and an Air Ambulance. So which was it? And yes, certain helicopters can.

[meleagertoo]

Perhaps better clarity with "certain operators with CAA dispensations can".
Marshallers are never needed by the helicopter, they are superfluous to helicopter ops in almost all cases. What can be be needed is spectator control which isn't quite the same thing.

[torqueshow]

Any air ambulance carrying the HEMS exemptions are exempt from a number of normal rules and regulations that a ‘normal’ aircraft might require.

They usually pick their landing sites from overhead taking into account the risk to the public and property on the ground before committing to the site. If things change such as a child runs out then ordinarily the approach would be aborted and they’d go somewhere else. It’s a constant dynamic risk assessment.

No Marshallers are ever required and sometimes an enthusiastic member of the public might decide to do their best impression of one but those are usually given a stiff ignoring.

If the helicopter and crew weren’t there long before leaving it’s likely that they weren’t required on that particular job.

[Less Hair]

They need to learn and train landing at remote places. This permit is typically included in their emergency assistance air vehicle privileges. It doesn't mean everybody else can do it. In my country you would need a local special permit by the local government and the owner of the place you want to land at and they would tell you what is required. However a marshaller would be pretty exotic, fencing off crowds not so much.

[Bell_ringer]

You have a greater chance of injury from other drivers, or millennials on e-scooters, than you do from a professionally operated helicopter.

[VeeAny]

Any air ambulance carrying the HEMS exemptions are exempt from a number of normal rules and regulations that a ‘normal’ aircraft might require.

They usually pick their landing sites from overhead taking into account the risk to the public and property on the ground before committing to the site. If things change such as a child runs out then ordinarily the approach would be aborted and they’d go somewhere else. It’s a constant dynamic risk assessment.

No Marshallers are ever required and sometimes an enthusiastic member of the public might decide to do their best impression of one but those are usually given a stiff ignoring.

If the helicopter and crew weren’t there long before leaving it’s likely that they weren’t required on that particular job.

For UK HEMS this is pretty much spot on.

[[email protected]]

On SAR we could land pretty much anywhere to get the job done and in remote areas this wasn't often a problem - and you made sure you didn't damage property or frighten livestock.

In crowded areas - beaches for example - we would often use the Coastguard ground units or RNLI Lifeguards to clear an area.

Trouble is, holiday makers can be very territorial when comes to their selected beach area and sometimes only a slight sandblasting would persuade them that the casualty's need was greater than theirs:)

Lifesaving tends to trump petty issues like landowners permission.

[Uplinker]

Thank you. Interesting - and quite agree that life saving is important.

Us fixed wing mob are not allowed to walk across an airport taxiway, even with our Hi Viz jackets, training and knowledge of the dangers and hazards etc., so I am just trying to get my head around having general public, dogs, children etc loose and unrestrained while a helicopter lands in a public carpark.

helimutt, Apologies for my lack of knowledge. I heard it fly overhead while working in my garage, and later noticed it had landed in a carpark in the valley below us, about a mile away. It was tail-on to me, so I could not see any markings. When it left, it stayed tail-on to my viewpoint, so I could not tell if it was Ambulance or SAR, sorry. It was twin engined, coloured red and orange/amber. It was not a Sikorsky S61, or a Bolkow 105 or a Eurocopter, or a Squirrel, or an Agusta 109, or a Dauphin. (Nor was it a Jetranger, or a Hughes or a Robinson or a Schwitzer or an Enstrom). It had a tail rotor which was angled upwards and was mounted on the top, starboard side of a single central tail fin. It had horizontal stabilisers on both sides of the boom. It looked a bit like an Agusta 109, but wasn't. That's all I can say.

bell ringer, I was not suggesting the heli would crash into anything, but that something uncontrolled might hit it.

[Sir Korsky]

are there any HEMS operators using NVGs in the UK?

[helimutt]

Thank you. Interesting - and quite agree that life saving is important.

Us fixed wing mob are not allowed to walk across an airport taxiway, even with our Hi Viz jackets, training and knowledge of the dangers and hazards etc., so I am just trying to get my head around having general public, dogs, children etc loose and unrestrained while a helicopter lands in a public carpark.

helimutt, Apologies for my lack of knowledge. I heard it fly overhead while working in my garage, and later noticed it had landed in a carpark in the valley below us, about a mile away. It was tail-on to me, so I could not see any markings. When it left, it stayed tail-on to my viewpoint, so I could not tell if it was Ambulance or SAR, sorry. It was twin engined, coloured red and orange/amber. It was not a Sikorsky S61, or a Bolkow 105 or a Eurocopter, or a Squirrel, or an Agusta 109, or a Dauphin. (Nor was it a Jetranger, or a Hughes or a Robinson or a Schwitzer or an Enstrom). It had a tail rotor which was angled upwards and was mounted on the top, starboard side of a single central tail fin. It had horizontal stabilisers on both sides of the boom. It looked a bit like an Agusta 109, but wasn't. That's all I can say.

bell ringer, I was not suggesting the heli would crash into anything, but that something uncontrolled might hit it.

Sounds like an AW169. From behind and at that distance its never easy to identify a helicopter. Sorry I thought you were in the place it landed. :)

[Para1234]

Are you in Cornwall? Sounds a bit like Cornwall air ambulance colours

[Fareastdriver]

Yonks ago we had a job associated with Radio 2 going digital. We picked up a bunch of lads known to the general populace as BROS. We arrived at the first site and there was our landing site with some blokes in black shirts holding back the crowd. We landed and immediately there was this avalanche of nubile women rushing to the aircraft. We pulled the throttles through to shut off and switched on the rotor brake,

As any fule knows this stops a S76A rotor turning in about two revs.

[Tiger G]

I wonder who would be liable for the insurance payout if said helicopters' rotor wash damaged vehicles in the car park with flying stones and debris chipping windscreens and paint (there are plenty of examples of it on YouTube) ??

I know how I'd feel if my pride and joy was damaged !! :mad:

[torqueshow]

I wonder who would be liable for the insurance payout if said helicopters' rotor wash damaged vehicles in the car park with flying stones and debris chipping windscreens and paint (there are plenty of examples of it on YouTube) ??

I know how I'd feel if my pride and joy was damaged !! :mad:

Short answer, the operator. But this should be factored into their landing site selection, there is no exemption that absolves them from damage to property and chipping paint on cars is just as valid a claim as a garden shed being blown over.

[[email protected]]

Someone decided to have the aircraft static display park at Fairford one year (1990 I think) upwind of one of the car parks. When it came to depart, air and ground taxying wasn't possible due to the clutter on the airfield so it was a 'pull pitch and go' - quite a few cars had a lot more scratches on them and chipped windscreens after that.

[Uplinker]

@ helimutt Yes, I think it must have been an AW139 - the rear horizontal stabilisers had that little up-turn at the outer ends. And it had a wheeled undercarriage.

@ Para1234: Yes :ok:

@ Fareastdriver, that was my thought too. Having landed and winding down; (or prior to taking off), If someone approached the heli from the rear, the pilot would not be able to see them walking into the tail rotor.

[[email protected]]

That would be the AW 169 Cornwall Air Ambulance then

[Uplinker]

Probably. I don't know what make and model it was and as I say, I only saw it tail-on from a mile away, and it didn't turn side-on to me when it left. :)

Anyway, the point is, I thought it was an interesting health and safety situation !

[whoknows idont]

From Regulation (EU) No 965/2012,
ANNEX V (Part-SPA),
SUBPART J, HELICOPTER EMERGENCY MEDICAL SERVICE OPERATIONS,
GM1 SPA.HEMS.100(a) Helicopter emergency medical service (HEMS) operations,
THE HEMS PHILOSOPHY:


(d) Air ambulance

In regulatory terms, air ambulance is considered to be a normal transport task where the risk is no higher than for operations to the full OPS.CAT and Part-ORO compliance. This is not intended to contradict/complement medical terminology but is simply a statement of policy; none of the risk elements of HEMS should be extant and therefore none of the additional requirements of HEMS need be applied. To provide a road ambulance analogy:
(1) if called to an emergency: an ambulance would proceed at great speed, sounding its siren and proceeding against traffic lights - thus matching the risk of operation to the risk of a potential death (= HEMS operations);

(2) for a transfer of a patient (or equipment) where life and death (or consequential injury of ground transport) is not an issue: the journey would be conducted without sirens and within normal rules of motoring - once again matching the risk to the task (= air ambulance operations).

The underlying principle is that the aviation risk should be proportionate to the task.

It is for the medical professional to decide between HEMS or air ambulance - not the pilot. For that reason, medical staff who undertake to task medical sorties should be fully aware of the additional risks that are (potentially) present under HEMS operations (and the pre-requisite for the operator to hold a HEMS approval). (For example in some countries, hospitals have principal and alternative sites. The patient may be landed at the safer alternative site (usually in the grounds of the hospital) thus eliminating risk - against the small inconvenience of a short ambulance transfer from the site to the hospital.)

Once the decision between HEMS or air ambulance has been taken by the medical professional, the commander makes an operational judgement over the conduct of the flight.

[OvertHawk]

Anyway, the point is, I thought it was an interesting health and safety situation !

And a situation which UK HEMS and Ambulance crews have been thinking about and managing for over three decades and hundreds of thousands of off-site landings.

I can't say I've seen the SOPs for every single operator but the ones that I have seen all include crowd control and oversight of the machine, when rotors running, by a member of the medical crew or other emergency service personnel at any time when there is a risk of public access.

This really is not a big deal.

[Uplinker]

Ah, OK, so a crew member/paramedic will get out as soon as possible after touching down, and keep public back while the heli runs the engine cool-down?

Situation de-mystified !

[VeeAny]

Ah, OK, so a crew member/paramedic will get out as soon as possible after touching down, and keep public back while the heli runs the engine cool-down?

Situation de-mystified !

And a lot of the modern aircraft need no engine cool down period, it is not unknown to see approximately 40 seconds from wheels (or skids) on to rotor stopped.

[SLFMS]

QUOTE=OvertHawk;11051005]And a situation which UK HEMS and Ambulance crews have been thinking about and managing for over three decades and hundreds of thousands of off-site landings.

I can't say I've seen the SOPs for every single operator but the ones that I have seen all include crowd control and oversight of the machine, when rotors running, by a member of the medical crew or other emergency service personnel at any time when there is a risk of public access.

This really is not a big deal.[/QUOTE]


Agree completely with this statement, what you see as a big deal with unmitigated risk control is just a normal day for any HEMS or SAR crew. It is highly likely there was a good reason to land there that was not apparent. A good example is their services are no longer required for the tasking due to death or the patient not been urgent enough for the helicopter. There could be any other reason that is just as reasonable. I would be surprised if the crew just landed because they could!

The crew have enough to deal with in their day to day work so probably best not to second guess them especially as stated where you were too far away to see everything anyway.

It would be a sad day indeed if helicopters required a marshaller for a simple landing.

[Para1234]

Out of interest when it comes to training, are they allowed to land where they want? Or does that require more risk assessment ect

[SLFMS]

Out of interest when it comes to training, are they allowed to land where they want? Or does that require more risk assessment ect

I can not say for UK but in my part of the world training is excluded and requires the normal permissions from land owner.

[create_it83]

Out of interest when it comes to training, are they allowed to land where they want? Or does that require more risk assessment ect

None of the 'exemptions' apply in training, and practice approaches etc are carried out into known, surveyed, sites.

[Hot_LZ]

For SAR training the crews are still allowed to land at their discretion. The landing site is always dynamically assessed by the crew and full briefing is conducted before carrying out the landing.

LZ

[Uplinker]

QUOTE=OvertHawk;11051005]

The crew have enough to deal with in their day to day work so probably best not to second guess them especially as stated where you were too far away to see everything anyway.

It would be a sad day indeed if helicopters required a marshaller for a simple landing.


As I say, I am not having a go - I am just trying to understand the risk assessment. I have good eyesight and look down on that carpark from a hill. I could see very clearly the heli, the public, their dogs etc. standing nearby. I could not see any heli markings such as the words 'Air Ambulance' because it was exactly tail-on to me and remained so.

I appreciate that any heli crew will obviously be very safety minded and will make an operational assessment of any landing site. It just the difference in what is allowed that intrigues me: Pilots of A320's etc at airports are not allowed to walk across a taxiway to the aircraft 'next door', even though we have a Hi Viz vest, we are trained pilots so we know and understand the movements of other aircraft and baggage trucks etc. We also have annual eyesight tests, hearing tests and medicals, On an airport ramp, there are no random, untrained loose public, dogs, cyclists or private cars moving about. When the passengers walk out to an aircraft, they are usually marshalled, to prevent them straying under the wing or away from the aircraft.

In an open public carpark, where nobody in the carpark is even expecting a helicopter to land, there are no such restrictions.

[Aser]

Uplinker go to https://part-aero.com/en/#part-spa/SPA.HEMS.100 and click on GM1(a) to read GM1 SPA.HEMS.100(a)

[Fareastdriver]

As a matter of interest my daughter did the Emergency Driving Course when she became an ambulance driver. Part of the course involved driving an ambulance up to 105 m.p.h. with the blues and twos down the M78 motorway.

[SLFMS]

As I say, I am not having a go - I am just trying to understand the risk assessment. I have good eyesight and look down on that carpark from a hill. I could see very clearly the heli, the public, their dogs etc. standing nearby. I could not see any heli markings such as the words 'Air Ambulance' because it was exactly tail-on to me and remained so.

I appreciate that any heli crew will obviously be very safety minded and will make an operational assessment of any landing site. It just the difference in what is allowed that intrigues me: Pilots of A320's etc at airports are not allowed to walk across a taxiway to the aircraft 'next door', even though we have a Hi Viz vest, we are trained pilots so we know and understand the movements of other aircraft and baggage trucks etc. We also have annual eyesight tests, hearing tests and medicals, On an airport ramp, there are no random, untrained loose public, dogs, cyclists or private cars moving about. When the passengers walk out to an aircraft, they are usually marshalled, to prevent them straying under the wing or away from the aircraft.

In an open public carpark, where nobody in the carpark is even expecting a helicopter to land, there are no such restrictions.


Uplinker I would suggest that an airport apron due to having multiple movements requires a greater duty of care as the use is not one time or limited. Also rather than having one hazard there are many at a busy airport some of which you may be unaware of because of noise and distraction. Having extra people on the apron even if qualified just gives more to manage for the ground crew. Regular operations to certified helipads require the same safety standards as an RPT apron

In an open car park a landing helicopter very quickly has everyone’s attention. The majority of people remain at a safe distance. If they are not you just stand off until they get the right idea often encouraged by hand gestures from the crew. Occasionally the plan has to change due to the “moron factor” but you just adjust if needed. As soon as you land the crew are in a position to intercept any wayward bystander. As others have mentioned it’s a dynamic assessment and one which is taken seriously. If something does go wrong it is pretty clear where the liability lays and most crews are very good at managing the risks appropriately.

One of the great things about being a Helicopter Pilot vs fixed is depending on your operation there is much more freedom to how you operate. This is a good example of where the pilot can use his grey matter to good effect.

[gulliBell]

I bet in hindsight this guy wish he had some ground marshaling assistance....another expensive day out for Toll.


https://cimg2.ibsrv.net/gimg/pprune.org-vbulletin/825x657/screen_shot_2021_06_04_at_12_24_29_ae6f6538cd2694f2eb97a4365 87e9afe01b3d9aa.png

[John Eacott]

Sad state of affairs that I spot a cartoon and associate with a Rotorheads thread :p


https://cimg4.ibsrv.net/gimg/pprune.org-vbulletin/1200x460/img_0455_eb748f1f60ae5ba14ab403ca0dd36b624a606818.jpg