Go Back  PPRuNe Forums > Aircrew Forums > Rotorheads
Reload this Page >

HEMS - Regulations and saving life

Rotorheads A haven for helicopter professionals to discuss the things that affect them

HEMS - Regulations and saving life

Old 30th Sep 2005, 17:27
  #321 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: North of South
Posts: 831
To change the tact slightly as an amateur cods head aviator and full time cop I was appalled by the way our normally professional emrgency services were arguing like school children at the scene of a major RTA . Firstly an inspector attempts to breathalyse a nearly unconscious man .Then the Dr stops treating him to fluff feathers with said inspector . Nice idea for a program but when will these darn producers , or whoever decides these daft storylines get it right . Inspectors dont breathalyse anyone EVER ! and we dont squabble at scenes when peoples lives are in jeapordy . There are procedures in place for most eventualities perhaps the researchers could ask the police and HEMs exactly how they would have dealt with it . Its infuriating like watching an epsiode of the blxxxy Bill , Tosh , But nice heli
maxdrypower is offline  
Old 1st Oct 2005, 23:16
  #322 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: washington
Posts: 36
2 engines 2 pilots EMS. yes or no?

With the recent crash of Airlift Northwest and an Agusta 109 at night in bad weather. Is twin engines enough? Do they need 2 pilots?
I fly Learjets too and I'm here to tell you that when you're in the sh!t weather at night and something goes wrong it's a busy cockpit for 2 pilots. One pilot needs to fly and the other needs to work on the emergency.
If one could afford it , it needs to be a 412 with 2 pilots and plan IFR flying on all flights.
mustangpilot is offline  
Old 2nd Oct 2005, 00:44
  #323 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: NO GPS FIX
Posts: 130
I agree two pilots, two stoves and all the bells and whistles for a certified IFR heli. You might want to include increasing the NVFR wx mins.
bb in ca is offline  
Old 2nd Oct 2005, 00:47
  #324 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: Plymouth, UK
Posts: 57
Ah, my pet topic.

Since cheaper operations would lead to more air ambulances, and I'm not aware of too many single-engine aircraft raining down on the heads of cty-dwellers... I'm a keep proponent of single-engine EMS and a relaxation of the single-engine restrictions. It would save lives.

I've flown the heli-lanes over London and had to take avoiding action. All the other single-engine aircraft are clustered into those narrow (and winding) lanes. Surely the collision risk is far greater than the safety benefits of only allowing twins to fly in straight lines over the city?

Benet
Benet is offline  
Old 2nd Oct 2005, 01:58
  #325 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: NO GPS FIX
Posts: 130
Hey Benet,

The reason I'm pro 2 donks is not just due to engine failures it's all the other bells and whistles that twins come with. Such as redundant electrical and hydraulic systems. Stability systems and sometimes coupled auto-pilots. Full instrument packages with an ADI that isn't between your legs and that is big enough to fly with for hours on end. Rad alts and instantaneous VSIs.

I work in a different environment then maybe you do with having the city of London or similar around you. I fly in a very dark place with very little to no ground lighting for extended periods in much of my call area. I mean no lights not even one for 30-45 minutes. I would imagine over Puget sound it would have been pretty dark as well.

My guess is that the Agusta A109 didn't go down due to lack of an engine but more likely some other factor like CFIT or some other more chatastrophic emergency than an engine failure. I don't fly Agusta A109's but I would hazard a guess that you can maintain altitude in cruise on a single engine.

Anything that can be done to make things safer for us makes it safer for our passengers and that's who were there for in the first place.
bb in ca is offline  
Old 2nd Oct 2005, 03:01
  #326 (permalink)  
800
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: Aus
Posts: 120
I agree with bb in ca

Its not as simple as having one answer.
If companies and pilots conducted night VFR operations within the boundaries of their respective Night VISUAL procedues then perhaps the incidences would reduce.

Simply put, when flying at night it is supposed to be the same as day but only darker. You should still have a horizon and should still be able to see the ground (when within a couple of thousand feet, as dictated by respective authorities).

As the saying goes "if your NVFR then your NVFR, if your not sure then you are IFR ".

Flying over London NVFR is obviously not the same as flying over a remote area with minimal if any ground lighting. In remote areas give me a suitably equiped IFR twin with all the bells and whistles anyday. If you have the money give me a second pilot also.
800 is offline  
Old 2nd Oct 2005, 09:01
  #327 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: May 2002
Location: "Deplorable but happy as a drunken Monkey!
Age: 71
Posts: 16,313
Two big engines...three or four axis autopilot...full panel of avionics...and NVG's...two pilots...trained, current, and PROFICIENT...not just blessed by management and the legal authorities by means of a company administered checkride.

Do that....and the safety stats will go way up....as will costs...but more people will survive.

Anyone that has flown in the Pacific Northwest, especially when the rains arrive, understand how dangerous it becomes. Single pilot is great until anything...anything throws a stick into the spokes.

I have flown SPIFR in a 412...thus the reason I believe in two closely working pilots in a good crew concept cockpit. You don't see airlines doing it...single pilot that is...and they fly under the very best of conditions at each end of the flight and at altitudes that keep them away from the rocks unlike helicopters.

There is a time and place for single engine aircraft....and if you are hauling paying passengers...that is not it if you are over inhospitable terrain. A forced landing to an already critical patient is usually fatal...that does not seem the right answer to me.
SASless is offline  
Old 2nd Oct 2005, 18:30
  #328 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Apr 2000
Location: EGDC
Posts: 7,475
Only the military can fly NVFR in UK, all civvy traffic is IFR at night.
crab@SAAvn.co.uk is offline  
Old 2nd Oct 2005, 18:32
  #329 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: May 2002
Location: "Deplorable but happy as a drunken Monkey!
Age: 71
Posts: 16,313
IFR at night...no VFR? None? Ever? Sure???
SASless is offline  
Old 2nd Oct 2005, 18:40
  #330 (permalink)  
Tightgit
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: The artist formerly known as john du'pruyting
Age: 60
Posts: 750
Sassy, crab is correct, sort of....we're either IFR or SVFR (in CAS)at night.


However when outside of CAS and below 3000' , practically speaking (but not literally), it is VFR at night (You know the UK....sigh )

(edited because it's a Sunday )

Last edited by handysnaks; 2nd Oct 2005 at 19:07.
handysnaks is offline  
Old 7th Oct 2005, 16:43
  #331 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Apr 2000
Location: EGDC
Posts: 7,475
Handy and SASless

Choice of VFR or IFR
22.—(1) Subject to paragraph (2) and to the provisions of rule 21 an aircraft shall always be flown in accordance with the Visual Flight Rules or the Instrument Flight Rules.

(2) In the United Kingdom an aircraft flying at night:

(a) outside a control zone shall be flown in accordance with the Instrument Flight Rules;

(b) in a control zone shall be flown in accordance with the Instrument Flight Rules unless it is flying on a special VFR flight.

So the only exception to IFR at night is Special VFR in a control zone - there is no get out, stated or implied for aircraft below 3000' - that only applies clear of cloud in sight of the surface during the day. Hence my comment that NVFR does not exist in UK for civil traffic.
crab@SAAvn.co.uk is offline  
Old 7th Oct 2005, 17:03
  #332 (permalink)  

Purveyor of Egg Liqueur to Lucifer
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: Alles über die platz
Posts: 4,615



OK it's a dove and not a pigeon, but you get the gist!!
SilsoeSid is offline  
Old 7th Oct 2005, 17:06
  #333 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: May 2002
Location: "Deplorable but happy as a drunken Monkey!
Age: 71
Posts: 16,313
Crab,

How does a student pilot do night flying training in a Robbie in the UK....can one go cross country at night in a Robbie?

If the weather is CAVU....and I am in the circuit of my favorite airport and the control tower is operating....must I file IFR or am I given a Special VFR Clearance for that operation...ie Touch and Go's at night at a controlled airport? What about if the Control Tower closes but the Fire Brigade remain on duty...can I fly?

Can I do night training at a private site outside controlled airspace in a single engine helicopter without filing IFR? If I am outside controlled airspace, at night, do I have to file a flight plan or make radio contact with anyone at all....despite flying IFR?

All this is very foreign to me....for some reason.

SASless is offline  
Old 7th Oct 2005, 18:34
  #334 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Apr 2000
Location: EGDC
Posts: 7,475
Dunno Sasless - you tell me how it can be done whilst complying with the rules. I don't think the R22 is cleared for IFR flight so that would make it a bit difficult.
crab@SAAvn.co.uk is offline  
Old 7th Oct 2005, 18:57
  #335 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: May 2003
Location: The Wild West... and Oz
Posts: 812
Night Vision Goggles.
BigMike is offline  
Old 7th Oct 2005, 19:01
  #336 (permalink)  
Tightgit
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: The artist formerly known as john du'pruyting
Age: 60
Posts: 750
Crab, I'm not sure what your point is (actually, I am but what the heck)
If you re read my post you will see the use of the phrase 'practically speaking'. This was intended to convey to sasless that when operating IFR at night ouside of controlled airspace and in good VMC, we do so as if we were flying under night visual flight rules (even though, and I want to make this perfectly clear, we are actually IFR). I did not state that it was a 'get out' of Instrument Flight Rules. However, if you toddle back to the books and check on which of the Instrument Flight Rules apply to an aircraft flying at night at less than 3000' outside of CAS (and of course in lovely VMC), you will hopefully get the gist of what I am saying.

handysnaks is offline  
Old 7th Oct 2005, 19:04
  #337 (permalink)  

Purveyor of Egg Liqueur to Lucifer
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: Alles über die platz
Posts: 4,615
Night Vision Goggles.
Are they really that good that they can change Sunrise / Sunset timings ?

Night is night, whatever you end up wearing !
.
.
.
.or not !!!




SS
SilsoeSid is offline  
Old 7th Oct 2005, 19:29
  #338 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: May 2003
Location: The Wild West... and Oz
Posts: 812
Whats the main killer of EMS crews? Crashes at Night.
Why? CFIT, Loss of awareness, Inadvertent IMC, Couldnt see the wires, the list goes on...
NVGs WILL make a huge difference to flight safety at night. Twin engines will not stop you hitting the side of a hill.
NVGs will not let you contiue on when the conditions are crap, what they will do is stop you ending up in the crap in the first place.

I will give you a Czech prospective. We fly NVFR only. That is only on Secondary missions, hospital transfers, and company NVFR rules are extremely strict. Before each flight the conditions are carefully asessed and a go or no-go decision is made. Any conditions that change during the flight to below company minimums, will lead to the flight being terminated via turning back or landing at alternates. Is this fool proof, no but so far the EMS industry here has had a good safety record. BTW we always use 2 pilots at night.

NVGs are the future. What will bring this about is not you, me, or your operation, but the Insurance companies and or the clients you contract to.

BM
BigMike is offline  
Old 7th Oct 2005, 20:21
  #339 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: May 2003
Location: Europe
Posts: 864
Crab,

I'm not sure if I missed your point but to fly IFR at night a helicopter flying below 3000ft with regard to visibility only has to obey IFR Rule 29(d):

29 Without prejudice to the provisions of rule 5, in order to comply with the Instrument Flight Rules an aircraft shall not fly at a height of less than 1000 feet above the highest obstacle within a distance of 5 nautical miles of the aircraft unless:

(a) it is necessary for the aircraft to do so in order to take off or land;

(b) the aircraft is flying on a route notified for the purposes of this rule;

(c) the aircraft has been otherwise authorised by the competent authority; or

(d) the aircraft is flying at an altitude not exceeding 3000 feet above mean sea level and remains clear of cloud and in sight of the surface.

This is the CAAs way of making NVFR the defacto standard. However, the helicopter does have to be crewed and equipped in accordance with schedule 4 and 5.
JimL is offline  
Old 7th Oct 2005, 23:06
  #340 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: Shropshire
Posts: 599
Crab- Nearly correct.
Sasless- Pretty correct ( I think!)
HandySnacks- Correct
JimL- Spot on again (Damn, I hate it when that happens!)

Crab- Rule 1 of preparing for civvy aviation- never ever quote 6 lines of the ANO etc. to prove your point without fully absorbing 200 pages either side of it to see how they affect your quote. Trust me, as every one points out, you will be able to prove that " an aircraft shall not fly" if you ignore rule 1.

Cheers

TeeS
TeeS is offline  

Thread Tools
Search this Thread

Contact Us Archive Advertising Cookie Policy Privacy Statement Terms of Service

Copyright © 2018 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.