HEMS - Regulations and saving life
I tend to agree with Biff's on the synopsis of UK HEMS, but since we are broadening the discussion to include all HEMS, then it is going to be horses for courses.
in Oz, the majority of HEMS operations have tried to heed the lesson of single pilot HEMS disadvantages but are also restricted by budget. Cancelling night HEMS is not as simple as in the UK where I draw from Biff's discussion that road crews can cover most of the area after traffic peaks. It would seem then that UK HEMS is predicated on the tyranny of traffic whereas in Oz, the system is predicated on the tyranny of distance.
In the UK, the emphasis seems to be on speed of response where night HEMS cannot really beat road EMS responses enough to justify costs. For difficult access issues, such as winch, SAR, water rescue, etc, there is a dedicated outfit with a far greater range. Is that a reasonable impression?
In Oz, the speed and access issues are catered for by the same provider, thus requiring 24 hour ops. Given the significantly smaller populations, and the significantly larger distances requiring bigger machines, it should be obvious why budgeting is so important. Accordingly, the bigger and more progressive Oz HEMS providors have trained up the crewman/winch operator as a front AND back seat crewmember. For example He would be expected to do normal crewman duties such as winch operator, conning, etc, but also flies in the front to run radios, mission co-ord, GPS, nav, all checklists including emergency checklists, and even brief and monitor instrument approaches. They are even taken on overseas simulator training trips to train and expose them to operations as a front seat team member. In that way, the risks apparent for single pilot night and IFR are greatly reduced within a very small budget increase. It is still maturing, but seems to working just fine.
Could this be the compromise between the SP two pilot camps??
As for NVG's, the new stuff can and should be used above built up areas, and mike Atwood's training course in the USA regularly completes NVG landings to conventinoally lit hospital pads. The kiwis are now analysing the newly introduced NVG technology to see if night unaided EMS should be restricted!!
Lets catch up (At least to their rugby).
in Oz, the majority of HEMS operations have tried to heed the lesson of single pilot HEMS disadvantages but are also restricted by budget. Cancelling night HEMS is not as simple as in the UK where I draw from Biff's discussion that road crews can cover most of the area after traffic peaks. It would seem then that UK HEMS is predicated on the tyranny of traffic whereas in Oz, the system is predicated on the tyranny of distance.
In the UK, the emphasis seems to be on speed of response where night HEMS cannot really beat road EMS responses enough to justify costs. For difficult access issues, such as winch, SAR, water rescue, etc, there is a dedicated outfit with a far greater range. Is that a reasonable impression?
In Oz, the speed and access issues are catered for by the same provider, thus requiring 24 hour ops. Given the significantly smaller populations, and the significantly larger distances requiring bigger machines, it should be obvious why budgeting is so important. Accordingly, the bigger and more progressive Oz HEMS providors have trained up the crewman/winch operator as a front AND back seat crewmember. For example He would be expected to do normal crewman duties such as winch operator, conning, etc, but also flies in the front to run radios, mission co-ord, GPS, nav, all checklists including emergency checklists, and even brief and monitor instrument approaches. They are even taken on overseas simulator training trips to train and expose them to operations as a front seat team member. In that way, the risks apparent for single pilot night and IFR are greatly reduced within a very small budget increase. It is still maturing, but seems to working just fine.
Could this be the compromise between the SP two pilot camps??
As for NVG's, the new stuff can and should be used above built up areas, and mike Atwood's training course in the USA regularly completes NVG landings to conventinoally lit hospital pads. The kiwis are now analysing the newly introduced NVG technology to see if night unaided EMS should be restricted!!
Lets catch up (At least to their rugby).
Last edited by helmet fire; 12th Oct 2005 at 00:12.
I think you will find it was "Biff" who wrote the synopsis of UK HEMS.
I really hope that CASA hop across the Tasman and look at the introduction of NVG's in New Zealand.
BigMike
I really hope that CASA hop across the Tasman and look at the introduction of NVG's in New Zealand.
BigMike
Bertie,
What was the difference in operating tactics between the UK EMS operators in those days and the US operators today?
Was it blind stinking luck there were no fatalities or was there a fundamental difference in the way it was done in the UK vice the USA?
http://www.aviationtoday.com/cgi/rw/...hestandard.htm
The link leads to a good discussion of Gulf of Mexico and US EMS issues that were discussed at a recent Safety Conference.
What was the difference in operating tactics between the UK EMS operators in those days and the US operators today?
Was it blind stinking luck there were no fatalities or was there a fundamental difference in the way it was done in the UK vice the USA?
http://www.aviationtoday.com/cgi/rw/...hestandard.htm
The link leads to a good discussion of Gulf of Mexico and US EMS issues that were discussed at a recent Safety Conference.
Last edited by SASless; 11th Oct 2005 at 11:54.
TC - as I said I have only got the info 3rd hand so cannot vouch for its accuracy but with the contract renewal looming for Civvy SAR in UK I suspect that the CAA have been asked to permit the SAR flts to trial NVG use.
Bigmike, appologies, you are right. Post edited!
One other important difference for night EMS in Oz as opposed to US and NZ (not sure about UK) is that we have a night VFR LSALT requirement similar to IFR LSALT. We cannot cruise below 1000 ft AGL (simplification here) within 10nm of the aircraft (7 with GPS) regardless of visibility or illumination. But then we dont have a requirement for a visual horizon, nor ground visual.
Intrested to hear your responses to the front seat crewman approach that the Oz operators have adopted to reduce risk exposure to SP ops.
One other important difference for night EMS in Oz as opposed to US and NZ (not sure about UK) is that we have a night VFR LSALT requirement similar to IFR LSALT. We cannot cruise below 1000 ft AGL (simplification here) within 10nm of the aircraft (7 with GPS) regardless of visibility or illumination. But then we dont have a requirement for a visual horizon, nor ground visual.
Intrested to hear your responses to the front seat crewman approach that the Oz operators have adopted to reduce risk exposure to SP ops.
Last edited by helmet fire; 12th Oct 2005 at 05:26.
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: Aus
Posts: 120
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
VFR = Visual Flight Rules
Doesn't ENR 1.2 (para 1.1.1) of the Aussie Aeronautical Information Publication (AIP) state that for VFR flight when operating at or below 2000ft above ground or water that the pilot is able to navigate by visual reference to the ground or water.
ENR 1.2 (para 2.6) states that in class G airpspace, at or below 3000ft AMSL or 1000ft AGL whichever is the higher you must be clear of cloud and in sight of ground or water.
Both these references do not stipulate DVFR or NVFR just VFR.
I suppose that if you are above these heights then no, you do not have to be in sight of ground or water!
There is also a Flight visibilty requirement of 5000m.
So, the question is;
If you do not have or cannot see a horizon, then how do you maintain the minimum 5000m viz or stay clear of cloud or possibly have to maintain ref to gnd or water.
chears
Doesn't ENR 1.2 (para 1.1.1) of the Aussie Aeronautical Information Publication (AIP) state that for VFR flight when operating at or below 2000ft above ground or water that the pilot is able to navigate by visual reference to the ground or water.
ENR 1.2 (para 2.6) states that in class G airpspace, at or below 3000ft AMSL or 1000ft AGL whichever is the higher you must be clear of cloud and in sight of ground or water.
Both these references do not stipulate DVFR or NVFR just VFR.
I suppose that if you are above these heights then no, you do not have to be in sight of ground or water!
There is also a Flight visibilty requirement of 5000m.
So, the question is;
If you do not have or cannot see a horizon, then how do you maintain the minimum 5000m viz or stay clear of cloud or possibly have to maintain ref to gnd or water.
chears
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: In Canada's breastland ...mmmm
Posts: 56
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Two of everything for the obvious reasons is what is best.
Only people who don't think so are the people not flying and that have to justify to other morrons why pay for a more expensive machine when a cheaper one can to their knowledge do the job. Why pay for two guys when you only need one to move the stick... Thats how too many customers think and sometimes some operators too... unfortunatly.
Look at the safety records of twins vs singles in EMS work and single or dual pilots in those two types of machines... let the numbers speak for themself.
I know that a lot of other factors have to be taken into considerations (weather limits, crew duty/rest time, etc...) but there is no doubt in my mind that two of each is better than one.
Been there, done that...
Only people who don't think so are the people not flying and that have to justify to other morrons why pay for a more expensive machine when a cheaper one can to their knowledge do the job. Why pay for two guys when you only need one to move the stick... Thats how too many customers think and sometimes some operators too... unfortunatly.
Look at the safety records of twins vs singles in EMS work and single or dual pilots in those two types of machines... let the numbers speak for themself.
I know that a lot of other factors have to be taken into considerations (weather limits, crew duty/rest time, etc...) but there is no doubt in my mind that two of each is better than one.
Been there, done that...
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: UK
Posts: 22
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Silence is Golden
Todays current bun:
http://www.thesun.co.uk/article/0,,2...40053,,00.html
Probably no surprises there.
http://www.thesun.co.uk/article/0,,2...40053,,00.html
Probably no surprises there.
HEMS Scenes safety
Curiosity in procedures for those that do EMS.
What "tail rotor guard" procedures (if any) do you have in place if the patient is to be loading while engines running. Do you place a guard at the aft of the aircraft 50 feet or at the 10/2 o'clock outside the rotor disk visible to the pilot?
From what position do you teach people (fireman, ambulance staff) to approach the helicopter from: straight of the nose or 3/9 o'clock (considering any slopes)
What "tail rotor guard" procedures (if any) do you have in place if the patient is to be loading while engines running. Do you place a guard at the aft of the aircraft 50 feet or at the 10/2 o'clock outside the rotor disk visible to the pilot?
From what position do you teach people (fireman, ambulance staff) to approach the helicopter from: straight of the nose or 3/9 o'clock (considering any slopes)
Re: HEMS Scenes safety
When we land, the pilot not flying will get out straight away and keep people back until we have shut down. We do not load patients from "scenes" with the rotors turning. We may unload on a hospital helipad with blades turning but once again one pilot will be supervising.
Re: HEMS Scenes safety
Unfortunately we are single pilot, on scene calls we stay running for max of 10 minutes. The assumption is that the pateint is close to being ready to be loaded upon our arrival.
We post a fireman 50 feet back to ensure no goes near the tail, but for some reason that procedure has been changed moving the individual forward
so the pilot can see the fireman. Not much reaction time if any.
Our hospitals require we shut down to off load.
We post a fireman 50 feet back to ensure no goes near the tail, but for some reason that procedure has been changed moving the individual forward
so the pilot can see the fireman. Not much reaction time if any.
Our hospitals require we shut down to off load.
Join Date: Sep 2000
Location: ISLE OF MAN
Posts: 780
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Re: HEMS Scenes safety
TT casevac into a twin squirrel is done with rotors running, in some really tight spots. The police have now withdrawn from work on the course, but I did the briefings for the entire force.
Instructions were comprehensive, covering everything from FOD clearing, landing into wind, downdraught effects, rotor sail, sloped sites, approaching from the front, not going aft of the doors, not touching anything, not being afraid to approach the a/c on thumbs up to point out what might appear to be bleedingly obvious risks such as cables,etc, etc, etc.
we still have responsiblity for clearing a couple of landing sites so the briefings are still delivered. Additionally, we are now running a HEMS 105 for the TT and Manx Grand Prix.
We've never lost one yet. There are also about 40,000 spectators running around too!
let me know if you need to know more
Instructions were comprehensive, covering everything from FOD clearing, landing into wind, downdraught effects, rotor sail, sloped sites, approaching from the front, not going aft of the doors, not touching anything, not being afraid to approach the a/c on thumbs up to point out what might appear to be bleedingly obvious risks such as cables,etc, etc, etc.
we still have responsiblity for clearing a couple of landing sites so the briefings are still delivered. Additionally, we are now running a HEMS 105 for the TT and Manx Grand Prix.
We've never lost one yet. There are also about 40,000 spectators running around too!
let me know if you need to know more