Night HEMS Ops - Twin or Single?
Join Date: Apr 2001
Location: Victoria
Age: 57
Posts: 56
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Thanks for that belly tank,
The last bit of CAO 29.11 refers to "At all times when the helicopter is operated below the IMC spped, the equipment associated with the automatic pilot and/or automatic stabilisation shall provide the pilot (s) with an essily interpreted and accurate display of the height of the helicopter above the surface of the sea or water, ground spped forwards, backwards, to the left and right and vertical speed in the correct sense"
The last bit of CAO 29.11 refers to "At all times when the helicopter is operated below the IMC spped, the equipment associated with the automatic pilot and/or automatic stabilisation shall provide the pilot (s) with an essily interpreted and accurate display of the height of the helicopter above the surface of the sea or water, ground spped forwards, backwards, to the left and right and vertical speed in the correct sense"
Crazy Scandihooligan
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: Damn, some mountain goat is nibbling my ear ;-)
Age: 52
Posts: 482
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Qld Paramedics
Autorotate,
Sorry, i have been away for the last few days. I note your reply, and duly pull neck in
MD 900
Sorry, i have been away for the last few days. I note your reply, and duly pull neck in
MD 900
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: All over the place...
Posts: 18
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Paramedics...
The problem is not the number of 'engines' it's based on a number of things;
1. Pilot Training
2. Aircraft Equipment
3. Aircrewman Training
4. SOP's
How many engine failures has there been in Australia in the past years???
I am fed up with the clients (para's, ambo's, administrators) tell us how to conduct our operation. I don't remember telling them that they should have used a 'blah' or, performed a 'blah' or indeed inserted a 'blah' in the patient in order for them to keep them alive.
My job is to get them from a to b as safe as I know how and the rules allow.
The problem is that certain individuals (pilots) go flying when perhaps they should not!
The EMS operation should have;
1. An auto-pilot
2. An Aircrewman that is trainied to a standard that permits him/her to operate the aircraft as well as a '2nd pilot' would.
Wineboy.
1. Pilot Training
2. Aircraft Equipment
3. Aircrewman Training
4. SOP's
How many engine failures has there been in Australia in the past years???
I am fed up with the clients (para's, ambo's, administrators) tell us how to conduct our operation. I don't remember telling them that they should have used a 'blah' or, performed a 'blah' or indeed inserted a 'blah' in the patient in order for them to keep them alive.
My job is to get them from a to b as safe as I know how and the rules allow.
The problem is that certain individuals (pilots) go flying when perhaps they should not!
The EMS operation should have;
1. An auto-pilot
2. An Aircrewman that is trainied to a standard that permits him/her to operate the aircraft as well as a '2nd pilot' would.
Wineboy.
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: USA
Age: 75
Posts: 3,012
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Way to go, Wineboy, right on!
The number of engines is being demanded, but it is the night, IFR and hover equipment that is what they really want, I think, and it seems that you agree.
Strange world!
The number of engines is being demanded, but it is the night, IFR and hover equipment that is what they really want, I think, and it seems that you agree.
Strange world!
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: home and abroad
Posts: 582
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Considering the fact that they have to convince non-aviation types to spend more on more capable machines to enable them to do a proper and most of all SAFE job, I'm not surprised that they mention engine numbers as the starting point. After all, it's not the pilots or engineers who know the difference that buy the tools, it's the paper pushers who don't know anything about equipment and why flying at night in an unstabilised VFR machine is a bit more difficult than FS 2000.
As long as further down the line the real message gets across and gets acted upon I have no problem whatsoever with the way they bring it up.
As long as further down the line the real message gets across and gets acted upon I have no problem whatsoever with the way they bring it up.
wow....this subject has received a good "flogging" but here is my penny's worth.......
I believe a major component of this problem is education or rather , lack of education. Overwater flying throws up some unique difficulties. Flying overwater at night even more. Trying to hover over water at night without some sort of auto hover is ..........
Many pilots may benefit from having some form of detailed briefing with emphasis on the danger of attempting to hover at night over water. Could I suggest ground training similiar to the way "flight into IMC by VFR pilots" has been handled.
Pilots who have done night overwater SAR , are all to well aware of the difficulty , risk and "pucker factor" even with auto hover equipped helicopters.
Trying to do it without auto hover , without another pilot etc etc......has an almost inevitable result.
A good project for someone in CASA ?????
I believe a major component of this problem is education or rather , lack of education. Overwater flying throws up some unique difficulties. Flying overwater at night even more. Trying to hover over water at night without some sort of auto hover is ..........
Many pilots may benefit from having some form of detailed briefing with emphasis on the danger of attempting to hover at night over water. Could I suggest ground training similiar to the way "flight into IMC by VFR pilots" has been handled.
Pilots who have done night overwater SAR , are all to well aware of the difficulty , risk and "pucker factor" even with auto hover equipped helicopters.
Trying to do it without auto hover , without another pilot etc etc......has an almost inevitable result.
A good project for someone in CASA ?????
Guest
Posts: n/a
You have never held a CASA Licence, and never will.
But yet you cast stones. Wooo
CASA has indeed set standards......read the AIP, CAR, CAO, CAAP and RFM. [And the proposed CASR's]
And read them before you give some smartass reply......maybe you will learn something!
High Nr
I have edited your post to remove a name.
Heliport
But yet you cast stones. Wooo
CASA has indeed set standards......read the AIP, CAR, CAO, CAAP and RFM. [And the proposed CASR's]
And read them before you give some smartass reply......maybe you will learn something!
High Nr
I have edited your post to remove a name.
Heliport
Last edited by Heliport; 26th Nov 2003 at 18:49.
oh dear...please forgive me if I have transgressed by suggesting CASA as the appropriate conduit for some form of education on the topic of night overwater hovering. Who else is there ?
ANYHOW , that was not my point !
My point was that ....I suspect there are a number of pilots out there who are blissfully unaware of WHY they should NOT attempt to hover over water at night unless they have some form of auto hover , a second pilot , preferably 2 engines , regular training , strict SOP's etc etc etc.
From my experience , night overwater helicopter flying , specifically when operating below 500 feet , is fraught with many traps for the unwary and still some for the odd "grey beard" who has a lapse of attention.
Fly safe and enjoy
ANYHOW , that was not my point !
My point was that ....I suspect there are a number of pilots out there who are blissfully unaware of WHY they should NOT attempt to hover over water at night unless they have some form of auto hover , a second pilot , preferably 2 engines , regular training , strict SOP's etc etc etc.
From my experience , night overwater helicopter flying , specifically when operating below 500 feet , is fraught with many traps for the unwary and still some for the odd "grey beard" who has a lapse of attention.
Fly safe and enjoy
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Oz
Posts: 124
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
High Nr, you must have recovered from the lashings myself and others have given you, either that, or you must enjoy it! 
'Tis true I have never held a CASA licence and never will, but then again I have never held a medical practitioners licence but I know that the health-care system in this country is stuffed.
The fact that I have never held a licence shows just how inept CASA is, as was pointed out at the recent SAR/EMS conference in Newcastle. Lack of Aircrewman Licencing was shown to be a major problem with the OZ SAR/EMS scene and one of the issues that was given top priority by those that attended.
Why can't you fly on NVG's yet in OZ? They can in New Zealand. We have people in the industry with the experience, we have organisations that are willing to spend the money. Don't know? Well I'll tell you, it's because of the feet draging and @rse covering in CASA.
Oh, and don't worry I have read all those publications you listed but they are not much good if they not enforced, not adequate or outdated. Thankfully I don't have to read them anymore.
By the way, I hope I am wrong and CASA do start swinging the big stick and change the rules and requirements for these types of operations, as the ATSB has recomended, but I'm not holding my breath.
'Tis true I have never held a CASA licence and never will, but then again I have never held a medical practitioners licence but I know that the health-care system in this country is stuffed.
The fact that I have never held a licence shows just how inept CASA is, as was pointed out at the recent SAR/EMS conference in Newcastle. Lack of Aircrewman Licencing was shown to be a major problem with the OZ SAR/EMS scene and one of the issues that was given top priority by those that attended.
Why can't you fly on NVG's yet in OZ? They can in New Zealand. We have people in the industry with the experience, we have organisations that are willing to spend the money. Don't know? Well I'll tell you, it's because of the feet draging and @rse covering in CASA.
Oh, and don't worry I have read all those publications you listed but they are not much good if they not enforced, not adequate or outdated. Thankfully I don't have to read them anymore.
By the way, I hope I am wrong and CASA do start swinging the big stick and change the rules and requirements for these types of operations, as the ATSB has recomended, but I'm not holding my breath.
Join Date: Sep 2001
Location: In the Haven of Peace
Age: 79
Posts: 600
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I remember the bad old days of carrying out night rescues over the water with no auto-hover. Then we had a tragic accident in the northern North Sea, resulting in the needless deaths of a number of friends, and a limited auto hover system was developed for the Bell 212 by Bristow (financed in part, I believe, by Shell). What a marvellous difference it made. This was back in 1982. In other places it seems that there is still a long way to go. I remember Bristow selling the system to the National safety Council? in Australia in the early 1980s and if it was available then I can't see why it wouldn't be now.
Around 150 years ago small children worked and died in the coal mines dragging coal in wickerwork baskets, but something called progress came along and changed all that. Surely, it's time that a modern country like Australia legislated such that its night rescue helicopters were compelled to be properly equipped for the task, and if need be, provided the money to make it possible.
Around 150 years ago small children worked and died in the coal mines dragging coal in wickerwork baskets, but something called progress came along and changed all that. Surely, it's time that a modern country like Australia legislated such that its night rescue helicopters were compelled to be properly equipped for the task, and if need be, provided the money to make it possible.
I remember seeing an article - here - which alleges some serious structural and organisational failures in CASA which led to all sorts of injustices.
I know it's 104 pages, I'm not expecting anyone to read it all (I did!), but at a quick glance through it does it strike a chord ?
I know it's 104 pages, I'm not expecting anyone to read it all (I did!), but at a quick glance through it does it strike a chord ?
Guest
Posts: n/a
Your sandpit Heliport....
I transgressed and soiled your sandpit.....a cardinal sin which I will try to next avoid.
But please be consistant, nicknames are just as [if not more] identifying as surnames in this industry......especially when that name has been said many times here, but yip, no red highlites from the headmaster.
Not such a Trimpot....
The fact that I have never held a licence shows just how inept CASA is, as was pointed out at the recent SAR/EMS conference in Newcastle. Lack of Aircrewman Licencing was shown to be a major problem with the OZ SAR/EMS scene and one of the issues that was given top priority by those that attended.
I was there over those few days, and this topic certainly did'nt suggest the Licensing of Crewman, however it did mention and reinforce that a crew, either two pilots or pilot and crewman should act as a team, rather than individuals....I have no problem with that viewpoint whatsoever. However, a certified Single Pilot IFR aircraft is 1000% better than under equipped aircraft requiring two folk up front.
I would always suggest two pilots, as they have the extra capacity over a crewperson, and when hassles with a patient in the back occurs, then you usually loose the crewperson from the front to the back.
Why can't you fly on NVG's yet in OZ?
You can!!
The Victorian Police have done a fully approved CASA trial, which worked very well, and another un named operator has been doing operations with them.
The legislation does not preclude their use, its just never been addressed the way that Mxxx Txxxx [I would say his name, but I would be banned] and his team have done it. And full credit to them.
I would be very surprised if there arn't 10 - 20 dedicated SAR/EMS aircraft in Oz with full NVG capacity within, lets say, 2 years.
This delay is a logistics one, with training, manual rewrites, aircraft mods and the acquisition of the 4th Generation NVG's themselves [Still a security issue] and of course $$$$
But please be consistant, nicknames are just as [if not more] identifying as surnames in this industry......especially when that name has been said many times here, but yip, no red highlites from the headmaster.
Not such a Trimpot....
The fact that I have never held a licence shows just how inept CASA is, as was pointed out at the recent SAR/EMS conference in Newcastle. Lack of Aircrewman Licencing was shown to be a major problem with the OZ SAR/EMS scene and one of the issues that was given top priority by those that attended.
I was there over those few days, and this topic certainly did'nt suggest the Licensing of Crewman, however it did mention and reinforce that a crew, either two pilots or pilot and crewman should act as a team, rather than individuals....I have no problem with that viewpoint whatsoever. However, a certified Single Pilot IFR aircraft is 1000% better than under equipped aircraft requiring two folk up front.
I would always suggest two pilots, as they have the extra capacity over a crewperson, and when hassles with a patient in the back occurs, then you usually loose the crewperson from the front to the back.
Why can't you fly on NVG's yet in OZ?
You can!!
The Victorian Police have done a fully approved CASA trial, which worked very well, and another un named operator has been doing operations with them.
The legislation does not preclude their use, its just never been addressed the way that Mxxx Txxxx [I would say his name, but I would be banned] and his team have done it. And full credit to them.
I would be very surprised if there arn't 10 - 20 dedicated SAR/EMS aircraft in Oz with full NVG capacity within, lets say, 2 years.
This delay is a logistics one, with training, manual rewrites, aircraft mods and the acquisition of the 4th Generation NVG's themselves [Still a security issue] and of course $$$$
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Oz
Posts: 124
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
On the matter of Aircrewman licencing at the recent conference in Newcastle, I will defer to you, High Nr, as you say you were there. I was not but I was reporting what was relayed to me by people who were. Sometimes these thing get lost in translation (helicopter joke )
.
In the matter of NVG's, I agree with you that they will "come of age" in OZ in the next few years, but it has been a long hard road. Ask anyone involved with the introduction of the S76 onto the RAAF SAR contract. The original machines were fully NVG compatible, and we had the crews and the money, yet CASA would not allow the use of NVG's. So much so that the "NVGness" (for wont of a better word) was removed from the machines on the subesquent contract.
Yes, you can fly on NVG's with the blessing of CASA IF it is a trial. As I said, it has been a long hard road, over 10 years thanks to CASA.
And by the way Gen 3 goggles are fine, better that that Russian cr@p!
.In the matter of NVG's, I agree with you that they will "come of age" in OZ in the next few years, but it has been a long hard road. Ask anyone involved with the introduction of the S76 onto the RAAF SAR contract. The original machines were fully NVG compatible, and we had the crews and the money, yet CASA would not allow the use of NVG's. So much so that the "NVGness" (for wont of a better word) was removed from the machines on the subesquent contract.
Yes, you can fly on NVG's with the blessing of CASA IF it is a trial. As I said, it has been a long hard road, over 10 years thanks to CASA.
And by the way Gen 3 goggles are fine, better that that Russian cr@p!
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: queensland
Posts: 11
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Pruners,
Without commenting on any specific incidents, I see this debate from the perspective that my aviation career has given me thus far.
The view point that I hold is that any aviation activity should be conducted with due regard to risk management. In the case of NVFR SAR/EMS ops the case could be presented as follows:
Residual risk = hazard + control measure.
Specific NVFR hazards are unusual attitudes resulting from reduced visual cues and inadvertant IMC due to not being able to see the cloud at night. Both of these conditions are inherent to NVFR ops and both can lead to catastrophic outcomes and therefore risk must be mitigated by control measures.
Control measures to mitigate these inherent hazards are;
1. Unusual attitudes. Stabilisation system/auto pilot and/or dual pilot depending on the amount of exposure to the hazard.
2. Inadvertant IMC. The ability to recover from the IIMC at lowest safe altitude leaves few safe options. An immediate transfer to an instrument scan followed by an IFR recovery is the safest, but requires training and preplanning. At a minimum the transfer to an instrument scan and recovery requires an IFR rated pilot in an IFR instrumented acft.
Once these control measures are in place the residual risk still exists and should be communicated, understood and deemed acceptable to as many of the stakeholders as possible in the activity. This includes all members of the crew, medical pers, patients, pax, regulators and managers.
The single / multi engine debate is not specific to NVFR though a multi engine acft is more likely to have the control measures outlined above and hence clouds the issue.
It does appear to me that SPNVFR SAR/EMS ops in non IFR equipped and crewed acft are not addressing inherent NVFR risks in this manner in Australia and that I find is a tragedy just waiting to happen.
Without commenting on any specific incidents, I see this debate from the perspective that my aviation career has given me thus far.
The view point that I hold is that any aviation activity should be conducted with due regard to risk management. In the case of NVFR SAR/EMS ops the case could be presented as follows:
Residual risk = hazard + control measure.
Specific NVFR hazards are unusual attitudes resulting from reduced visual cues and inadvertant IMC due to not being able to see the cloud at night. Both of these conditions are inherent to NVFR ops and both can lead to catastrophic outcomes and therefore risk must be mitigated by control measures.
Control measures to mitigate these inherent hazards are;
1. Unusual attitudes. Stabilisation system/auto pilot and/or dual pilot depending on the amount of exposure to the hazard.
2. Inadvertant IMC. The ability to recover from the IIMC at lowest safe altitude leaves few safe options. An immediate transfer to an instrument scan followed by an IFR recovery is the safest, but requires training and preplanning. At a minimum the transfer to an instrument scan and recovery requires an IFR rated pilot in an IFR instrumented acft.
Once these control measures are in place the residual risk still exists and should be communicated, understood and deemed acceptable to as many of the stakeholders as possible in the activity. This includes all members of the crew, medical pers, patients, pax, regulators and managers.
The single / multi engine debate is not specific to NVFR though a multi engine acft is more likely to have the control measures outlined above and hence clouds the issue.
It does appear to me that SPNVFR SAR/EMS ops in non IFR equipped and crewed acft are not addressing inherent NVFR risks in this manner in Australia and that I find is a tragedy just waiting to happen.
