HEMS - Regulations and saving life
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: standing by my bbq
Posts: 105
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The regs should be followed, however if something is unsafe, but legal we should say no. It's interesting how road ambulances, and police do not have to follow the traffic laws, while on a call. As for leaving rescues only to trained people, what makes you trained ?? I've had to do several rescues while on fires, and other operations, yet I've had no specific rescue training. I've had medics in the back who were all briefed and trained on the helicopter, but weren't specific "flight nurses", or rescue techs. These rescues were all done safely, and with the safety of all onboard uppermost in my mind. As it is during all of my flights.
Cheers
Cheers
Randy_g :
That bit about ambulances and police cars being able to break traffic laws in an emergency - not over here at least.
There's a thread on JB, albeit UK specific, about this. Check "I don't really think so . . ." It would surprise me if there were not similar constraints on emergency vehicle drivers in other countries.
That bit about ambulances and police cars being able to break traffic laws in an emergency - not over here at least.
There's a thread on JB, albeit UK specific, about this. Check "I don't really think so . . ." It would surprise me if there were not similar constraints on emergency vehicle drivers in other countries.
Hoverman, you make yourself look more of a prat everytime you re-inforce your views on flying outside the rules.
What on earth makes you think you know better than the national laws of this country? Are you better qualified? Wiser? More experienced? Or do you simply have this thing against authority?
I have never met one person to date, who honestly believes that the rules they fly under when they fly HEMS, are unjust or irrational....except you
Hasn't it dawned on you yet that (in this instance) rules are made based on: experience gained, SAFETY, and last but not least: your protection :o . By people who have some credibility to say the least.
{Could one imagine someone like you becoming a CAA inspector}
You sound like a very frustrated, angry, anti-establishment and I'll hazard a guess...inexperienced aviator!
I hope your employers don't read this thread, for your sake. I for one wouldn't want you in my team
What on earth makes you think you know better than the national laws of this country? Are you better qualified? Wiser? More experienced? Or do you simply have this thing against authority?
I have never met one person to date, who honestly believes that the rules they fly under when they fly HEMS, are unjust or irrational....except you
Hasn't it dawned on you yet that (in this instance) rules are made based on: experience gained, SAFETY, and last but not least: your protection :o . By people who have some credibility to say the least.
{Could one imagine someone like you becoming a CAA inspector}
You sound like a very frustrated, angry, anti-establishment and I'll hazard a guess...inexperienced aviator!
I hope your employers don't read this thread, for your sake. I for one wouldn't want you in my team
Well, I have thought long and hard over making this posting-Firstly because I would not like to encourage anyone to carry out what would be considered a reckless piece of flying and secondly because I suspect I am not going to enjoy being flamed!!
I have to say I agree with some bits of both sides of what has become a very polarised argument. On the one side, I can see that merely breaking a rule does not equate to being dangerous. eg I consider it dangerous to break a 30mph speed limit in a built up area where children might be playing etc. however I would not consider it dangerous if someone drove at 85mph on a clear motorway in good conditions, but both involve breaking rules. I can also understand that it would be wrong to risk uninvolved passengers or bystanders in a dangerous rescue attempt. That said I could have nothing but admiration for the pilot of the jetranger attempting to haul survivors from the Potomac crash out of the frozen river!
On the subject of rule breaking then I assume the main concern within the UK is the implication of rule 5 on a rescue attempt-
Rule 5(1)b - endangering persons/property if an engine fails.
Rule 5(1)c - flight over congested cities, towns etc.
Rule 5(1)d - flight over open air assembly of more than 1000 people
Rule 5(1)e - flight within 500ft of persons buildings etc.
Rule 5(2) - is fairly boring, does not affect most people and I suspect most of us stop reading about midway through it- however it is worth continuing to -
Rule 5(3) - Nothing in this rule shall prohibit an aircraft from flying in such a manner as is necessary for the purpose of saving life.
So it does appear that the CAA have actually considered the possibility of flying 'outside the Rules' as we normally consider them.
HEMS and Police pilots within the UK are still constrained by their relevant ops manuals and exemptions which limit the extent of alleviation to rule 5.
Hope that all makes sense and adds something to the discussion.
TeeS
I have to say I agree with some bits of both sides of what has become a very polarised argument. On the one side, I can see that merely breaking a rule does not equate to being dangerous. eg I consider it dangerous to break a 30mph speed limit in a built up area where children might be playing etc. however I would not consider it dangerous if someone drove at 85mph on a clear motorway in good conditions, but both involve breaking rules. I can also understand that it would be wrong to risk uninvolved passengers or bystanders in a dangerous rescue attempt. That said I could have nothing but admiration for the pilot of the jetranger attempting to haul survivors from the Potomac crash out of the frozen river!
On the subject of rule breaking then I assume the main concern within the UK is the implication of rule 5 on a rescue attempt-
Rule 5(1)b - endangering persons/property if an engine fails.
Rule 5(1)c - flight over congested cities, towns etc.
Rule 5(1)d - flight over open air assembly of more than 1000 people
Rule 5(1)e - flight within 500ft of persons buildings etc.
Rule 5(2) - is fairly boring, does not affect most people and I suspect most of us stop reading about midway through it- however it is worth continuing to -
Rule 5(3) - Nothing in this rule shall prohibit an aircraft from flying in such a manner as is necessary for the purpose of saving life.
So it does appear that the CAA have actually considered the possibility of flying 'outside the Rules' as we normally consider them.
HEMS and Police pilots within the UK are still constrained by their relevant ops manuals and exemptions which limit the extent of alleviation to rule 5.
Hope that all makes sense and adds something to the discussion.
TeeS
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: UK
Posts: 183
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
"{Could one imagine someone like you becoming a CAA inspector}"
TC
I'm happy to take all your other insults on the chin because I'm familiar with your debating style, but suggesting a fellow aviator would even consider becoming a CAA inspector is downright offensive.
This is meant to be friendly discussion. Abuse of that nature is uncalled for, and completely OTT. A withdrawal would be appreciated, and an apology would not be amiss.
TC
I'm happy to take all your other insults on the chin because I'm familiar with your debating style, but suggesting a fellow aviator would even consider becoming a CAA inspector is downright offensive.
This is meant to be friendly discussion. Abuse of that nature is uncalled for, and completely OTT. A withdrawal would be appreciated, and an apology would not be amiss.
Last edited by Hoverman; 14th Oct 2002 at 11:12.
"Just a pilot"
If you can't do it without creating more casualties, dont.
If you wouldn't do it in spite of the knowledge you'd lose your ticket and job, don't.
In my orientation, my employer explained the company's wishes-
All flights are to be considered as air taxi, illustrated as the "box of rocks' analogy-as in would I do the same for a "box of rocks".
Second, we are generally not engaged in rescue missions. We're not equipped or trained. If I can help, do it safely and within the regs, I'm allowed to use my best professional judgement. I've been around long enough to have a very clear idea of my capabilities, on both sides of the rules. These conditions seem fine and sensible, and I can sleep at night with the rules.
But employer rules and FARs don't define what's safe and in good conscience. I can imagine scenarios where I'd declare an emergency and risk losing my job and ticket. For instance-patient loaded, circumnavigating Class B, when patient status suddenly and precipitously declines. The med crew urgently requests nearest-and I can't get clearance into the B for the most expeditious route to the nearest facility? LIfe and death emergency, in qualified opinion? I'd declare and go, without creating any more casualties, explain and hope that my judgement is supported.
If you wouldn't do it in spite of the knowledge you'd lose your ticket and job, don't.
In my orientation, my employer explained the company's wishes-
All flights are to be considered as air taxi, illustrated as the "box of rocks' analogy-as in would I do the same for a "box of rocks".
Second, we are generally not engaged in rescue missions. We're not equipped or trained. If I can help, do it safely and within the regs, I'm allowed to use my best professional judgement. I've been around long enough to have a very clear idea of my capabilities, on both sides of the rules. These conditions seem fine and sensible, and I can sleep at night with the rules.
But employer rules and FARs don't define what's safe and in good conscience. I can imagine scenarios where I'd declare an emergency and risk losing my job and ticket. For instance-patient loaded, circumnavigating Class B, when patient status suddenly and precipitously declines. The med crew urgently requests nearest-and I can't get clearance into the B for the most expeditious route to the nearest facility? LIfe and death emergency, in qualified opinion? I'd declare and go, without creating any more casualties, explain and hope that my judgement is supported.
Join Date: Sep 2000
Location: UK
Posts: 11
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Widely known "Human Factors" fact:
Example of "Dangerous character type" - for a pilot:
Someone who decides which rules he/she agrees with (& adheres to) and those he/she doesn't.
I.e a person who thinks they know better than the rule makers.
It might interest Hoverman to know that such character types are rare (thank Goodness) amongst pilots.
(If you don't believe me, ask the experts at Farnborough).
Incidentally, I heard once that a certain UK HEMS unit was invited to stop operating on the basis that it was starting to get its Flight Safety priorities "confused". They should have been:
1. Safety of aircraft & crew
2. Safety of the public
3. Dealing with the casualty.
IN THAT ORDER.
In their case No 3 was becoming more important than No 1.
Food for thought.
Example of "Dangerous character type" - for a pilot:
Someone who decides which rules he/she agrees with (& adheres to) and those he/she doesn't.
I.e a person who thinks they know better than the rule makers.
It might interest Hoverman to know that such character types are rare (thank Goodness) amongst pilots.
(If you don't believe me, ask the experts at Farnborough).
Incidentally, I heard once that a certain UK HEMS unit was invited to stop operating on the basis that it was starting to get its Flight Safety priorities "confused". They should have been:
1. Safety of aircraft & crew
2. Safety of the public
3. Dealing with the casualty.
IN THAT ORDER.
In their case No 3 was becoming more important than No 1.
Food for thought.
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: New York City
Posts: 820
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
ARIS/TC
I dunno if you're limiting your comments to HEMS ops, or helo flying generally. If the first, I don't know the UK regs so can't comment. If the second, aren't you being just a bit sweeping? It's not as if there's some universal worldwide agreement on what regs and rules are necessary for safety.
Your UK rule 5 is much stricter than our FAA regs on low flying. Can't see no wrong in a pilot saying in his opinion the rule 5 is too strict. We have to comply with the regs but I can't see what's so terrible bout a pilot saying he disagees with this or that rule. I'm a bit worried about you saying we should just accept laws are made by wiser cleverer people who know more than we do? You must have got better quality government employees and politicians over there than we do!
I dunno if you're limiting your comments to HEMS ops, or helo flying generally. If the first, I don't know the UK regs so can't comment. If the second, aren't you being just a bit sweeping? It's not as if there's some universal worldwide agreement on what regs and rules are necessary for safety.
Your UK rule 5 is much stricter than our FAA regs on low flying. Can't see no wrong in a pilot saying in his opinion the rule 5 is too strict. We have to comply with the regs but I can't see what's so terrible bout a pilot saying he disagees with this or that rule. I'm a bit worried about you saying we should just accept laws are made by wiser cleverer people who know more than we do? You must have got better quality government employees and politicians over there than we do!
Bronx :
The way I read it, Aris isn't saying it's wrong to disagree with the regs.
What he's quoting says to me "Dangerous pilots choose which regs to obey and which to disregard", which is a different thing from just disagreeing.
By implication, this to me means "If you disagree with the rules because you think they're wrong, work from inside the system to get them changed."
The way I read it, Aris isn't saying it's wrong to disagree with the regs.
What he's quoting says to me "Dangerous pilots choose which regs to obey and which to disregard", which is a different thing from just disagreeing.
By implication, this to me means "If you disagree with the rules because you think they're wrong, work from inside the system to get them changed."
Join Date: Sep 2000
Location: UK
Posts: 11
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Thanks, Bronx, (oops! - sorry Bronx, I meant thanks Nr Fairy!!) I concur your interpretation. However, I was also being specific about this particular subject which has some pretty heavy rules associated with it.
Where does the "dangerous" pilot with the aforementioned tendencies draw the line? - When he/she decides??!!
Surely this is a very unhealthy character trait?
This (profession) is also about discipline. Rules evolve via experienced & wise inputs but they are there to support our No 1 priority - the safety of our flying from ours, our passengers & the publics point of view.
I'm still quite gobsmacked that a pilot can be "proud" to break the rules per se. The implications are frightening.
Where does the "dangerous" pilot with the aforementioned tendencies draw the line? - When he/she decides??!!
Surely this is a very unhealthy character trait?
This (profession) is also about discipline. Rules evolve via experienced & wise inputs but they are there to support our No 1 priority - the safety of our flying from ours, our passengers & the publics point of view.
I'm still quite gobsmacked that a pilot can be "proud" to break the rules per se. The implications are frightening.
Last edited by ARIS; 15th Oct 2002 at 10:29.
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: UK
Posts: 62
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Catch 22
Nr: Aris does say: "...he/she agrees with (& adheres to) ...."
Nr: "By implication, this to me means "If you disagree with the rules because you think they're wrong, work from inside the system to get them changed." "
- you can't question the system if disagreeing makes you dangerous ! Catch 22
Aris: I'd be amazed if anyone was 'proud' to do this..
you say the priorities are:
1. Safety of aircraft & crew
2. Safety of the public
3. Dealing with the casualty.
IN THAT ORDER.
Where in that order would you put 'rule compliance' ?
I'd be pretty happy to put it at 3rd equal - wouldn't you?
Nr: "By implication, this to me means "If you disagree with the rules because you think they're wrong, work from inside the system to get them changed." "
- you can't question the system if disagreeing makes you dangerous ! Catch 22
Aris: I'd be amazed if anyone was 'proud' to do this..
you say the priorities are:
1. Safety of aircraft & crew
2. Safety of the public
3. Dealing with the casualty.
IN THAT ORDER.
Where in that order would you put 'rule compliance' ?
I'd be pretty happy to put it at 3rd equal - wouldn't you?
Join Date: Sep 2000
Location: UK
Posts: 11
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Q max: I hear what you're saying but am trying to look more deeply at pilot culture.
It seems that some of us are of a known dangerous character type. This is the point I'm making. The rest of us will make sensible decisions based on the rules and our professional discipline.
What was that saying? "Rules were made for the guidance of the wise and adherence of fools" - or something like that. I'm not saying that "the wise" do not adhere to the rules, merely that the wise are sensible about the way they go about their flying within the right culture, perhaps created by the rules.
I re-iterate that amongst the 'Human Factors' boffins, the tendency to decide which rules they agree with and which they don't (and disregard) is a known very dangerous character trait for pilots.
Incidentally, be amazed - look at Hoverman's post!
It seems that some of us are of a known dangerous character type. This is the point I'm making. The rest of us will make sensible decisions based on the rules and our professional discipline.
What was that saying? "Rules were made for the guidance of the wise and adherence of fools" - or something like that. I'm not saying that "the wise" do not adhere to the rules, merely that the wise are sensible about the way they go about their flying within the right culture, perhaps created by the rules.
I re-iterate that amongst the 'Human Factors' boffins, the tendency to decide which rules they agree with and which they don't (and disregard) is a known very dangerous character trait for pilots.
Incidentally, be amazed - look at Hoverman's post!
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: New York City
Posts: 820
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Thomas/ARIS
Well I've read and reread Hoverman's posts and can't see what's so amazing and I just don't get your beef with him.
Hoverman accpets 'first and foremost you're responsible for conducting flight in a safe manner with the utmost respect for the lives of your crew.'
No problem with that is there? But in exceptional circumstances PROVIDED IT CAN BE DONE SAFELY, he admires guys who are prepared to jeopardize their own tickets by infringing the regs for the sake of saving other and likes to think he'd behave selflessly if he was in the same cirumstances. For saying that you attack him for being a dangerous pilot.
Why is that so bad if they or he have enough experience, use their judgement and decide it can be done safely? Or do you think nobody has that capability to exercise good jdgement except the lawmakers?
Hoverman says he don't buy the idea that flying within the regs = flying safely, and breaking the regs = endangering. I agree with him. Breaking the regs MIGHT be dangerous. depends on the circumstances but in the words of the ol song, it ain't necessarily so.
You seem t be shifting your ground a bit now and being more moderate but, unless I misunderstood, you were saying the lawmakers know best and only some dangerous idiot would think he knows better.
Look at what you wrote. Quote "What on earth makes you think you know better than the national laws of this country? Are you better qualified? Wiser? More experienced? Or do you simply have this thing against authority? Hasn't it dawned on you yet that (in this instance) rules are made based on: experience gained, SAFETY, and last but not least: your protection. By people who have some credibility to say the least. " Unquote.
Strong words. What's so bad about somebody thinking the lawmakers have got it wrong?
AND, According to you someone who's prepared to use his own judgement and break a reg in exceptional circumstances is a dangerous pilot! Wow! That's a new one on me.
You've got a lot of faith in the lawmakers getting it right all the time. But I read lots of posts from British pilots complaining that your CAA is wrong about such and such, out of touch with the real world and too strict. I think the FAA is sometimes, but from what I read on the forum and from talks with my British friends, the FAA seems to be much more realistic and supportive of aviators than the UK CAA. (I sincerely don't mean to start a UK-US war here.)
I'll never forget the footage of that 206 pilot rescuing people from the icy Potomac after the airplane crash a few years ago. He even had his skids in the water at one point so a guy could cling on and be flown to safety. He broke every rule in the book, but saved five people. What a hero. Although the FAA's not perfect, I somehow don't think there's anyone in the FAA who's a big enough a**hole to question that guy. Sounds to me like if that had happened in the UK, the pilot would have to explain himself to your CAA investigators.
And since your so hung up on this personality/character trait thing, what do your psycho boffins say about about pilots who get so angry and start insulting folks because they hold a different point of view. Amaze yourself .... read the thread from the beginning and count up how many people you've insulted.
Well I've read and reread Hoverman's posts and can't see what's so amazing and I just don't get your beef with him.
Hoverman accpets 'first and foremost you're responsible for conducting flight in a safe manner with the utmost respect for the lives of your crew.'
No problem with that is there? But in exceptional circumstances PROVIDED IT CAN BE DONE SAFELY, he admires guys who are prepared to jeopardize their own tickets by infringing the regs for the sake of saving other and likes to think he'd behave selflessly if he was in the same cirumstances. For saying that you attack him for being a dangerous pilot.
Why is that so bad if they or he have enough experience, use their judgement and decide it can be done safely? Or do you think nobody has that capability to exercise good jdgement except the lawmakers?
Hoverman says he don't buy the idea that flying within the regs = flying safely, and breaking the regs = endangering. I agree with him. Breaking the regs MIGHT be dangerous. depends on the circumstances but in the words of the ol song, it ain't necessarily so.
You seem t be shifting your ground a bit now and being more moderate but, unless I misunderstood, you were saying the lawmakers know best and only some dangerous idiot would think he knows better.
Look at what you wrote. Quote "What on earth makes you think you know better than the national laws of this country? Are you better qualified? Wiser? More experienced? Or do you simply have this thing against authority? Hasn't it dawned on you yet that (in this instance) rules are made based on: experience gained, SAFETY, and last but not least: your protection. By people who have some credibility to say the least. " Unquote.
Strong words. What's so bad about somebody thinking the lawmakers have got it wrong?
AND, According to you someone who's prepared to use his own judgement and break a reg in exceptional circumstances is a dangerous pilot! Wow! That's a new one on me.
You've got a lot of faith in the lawmakers getting it right all the time. But I read lots of posts from British pilots complaining that your CAA is wrong about such and such, out of touch with the real world and too strict. I think the FAA is sometimes, but from what I read on the forum and from talks with my British friends, the FAA seems to be much more realistic and supportive of aviators than the UK CAA. (I sincerely don't mean to start a UK-US war here.)
I'll never forget the footage of that 206 pilot rescuing people from the icy Potomac after the airplane crash a few years ago. He even had his skids in the water at one point so a guy could cling on and be flown to safety. He broke every rule in the book, but saved five people. What a hero. Although the FAA's not perfect, I somehow don't think there's anyone in the FAA who's a big enough a**hole to question that guy. Sounds to me like if that had happened in the UK, the pilot would have to explain himself to your CAA investigators.
And since your so hung up on this personality/character trait thing, what do your psycho boffins say about about pilots who get so angry and start insulting folks because they hold a different point of view. Amaze yourself .... read the thread from the beginning and count up how many people you've insulted.
Last edited by Bronx; 15th Oct 2002 at 15:27.
Darn Bronx.....all that......spot on and to the very point of the matter....I agree one hundred percent with what you said! The least you could have done is throw in at least one Bronx Cheer to him! I will do it for you what say? 
Psssssst!
Psssssst!
Bronx wrote:
Umm. What?
Wasn't that a U.S. Park Police helicopter? Arent' they categorized as "public service" or whatever that exemption is to U.S. FAR's?
Bronx, I know you said that they broke "every rule in the book," but could you be a little more specific as to just exactly WHICH rules they "broke"?
Expanding on that, can you specify how many and which rules would have been broken if it was a civilian, commercial operator who hauled those people out of the river? Were any of them sling-loaded?
Seems to me that your FAA recognizes the fact that the number of times civilian helicopters are involved in "life-saving rescues" is extremely small and not deserving of regulations to specifically prohibit or allow them.
I'll never forget the footage of that 206 pilot rescuing people from the icy Potomac after the airplane crash a few years ago. He even had his skids in the water at one point so a guy could cling on and be flown to safety. He broke every rule in the book, but saved five people.
Wasn't that a U.S. Park Police helicopter? Arent' they categorized as "public service" or whatever that exemption is to U.S. FAR's?
Bronx, I know you said that they broke "every rule in the book," but could you be a little more specific as to just exactly WHICH rules they "broke"?
Expanding on that, can you specify how many and which rules would have been broken if it was a civilian, commercial operator who hauled those people out of the river? Were any of them sling-loaded?
Seems to me that your FAA recognizes the fact that the number of times civilian helicopters are involved in "life-saving rescues" is extremely small and not deserving of regulations to specifically prohibit or allow them.
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: London
Posts: 2,916
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I think the point being made was the pilot of the Parks Police LongRanger carried out the rescues in circumstances which some contributors (based on what they've said here) might think were dangerous.
Not only did he fly in the middle of a snowstorm, but he was hovering inches above the Potomac which was iced over. At one point, his skids touched or even went slightly into the water- one of those rescued had two broken arms and couldn't put the lifebelt on. As I remember (it was 1982), the pilot put the skids on/slightly under the water, the crewman bent the man over the skids and he was flown to the river bank.
The crew went over the river six times and saved five lives; sadly a true hero who passed the lifebelt to five others instead of taking it himself drowned before he could be rescued.
TC or ARIS or anybody else .....
Was the pilot a brave hero who risked his own life to save others?
Or a dangerous pilot with a character defect?
(I think pilot and crewman were both heros - but I'm only an amateur pilot, not a trained professional.)
Not only did he fly in the middle of a snowstorm, but he was hovering inches above the Potomac which was iced over. At one point, his skids touched or even went slightly into the water- one of those rescued had two broken arms and couldn't put the lifebelt on. As I remember (it was 1982), the pilot put the skids on/slightly under the water, the crewman bent the man over the skids and he was flown to the river bank.
The crew went over the river six times and saved five lives; sadly a true hero who passed the lifebelt to five others instead of taking it himself drowned before he could be rescued.
TC or ARIS or anybody else .....
Was the pilot a brave hero who risked his own life to save others?
Or a dangerous pilot with a character defect?
(I think pilot and crewman were both heros - but I'm only an amateur pilot, not a trained professional.)
Breaking every rule in the book...
Flying Lawyer opined:
The point is that what the Park Police crew did with a helicopter that awful day was the EXACT thing for which it was invented: doing something that, at the time, no other machine on earth could do. "Dangerous" is one thing. Illegal (or against the rules) is something else. But it is curious that Bronx phrased it the way he did.
There is no "rule" against flying in snow, nor is it dangerous; a LongRanger equipped with snow baffles (as that one was) is perfectly capable of doing it.
There is no "rule" against hovering low over water or putting a skid under the surface to allow a passenger to board. Looked like expert flying to me, not luck.
The "single-engines are fine" guys wouldn't even argue that the operation would have been any safer in a TwinSquirrel.
We're not talking semantics here. I personally do not believe that what the Park Police did that day was "dangerous," nor would it be considered breaking "every rule in the book" on either side of the Atlantic. Now, if it had been two guys (a pilot and his traffic-reporter partner, say) out in their commercial LongRanger that day...
I think the point being made was the pilot of the Parks Police LongRanger carried out the rescues in circumstances which some contributors (based on what they've said here) might think were dangerous.
There is no "rule" against flying in snow, nor is it dangerous; a LongRanger equipped with snow baffles (as that one was) is perfectly capable of doing it.
There is no "rule" against hovering low over water or putting a skid under the surface to allow a passenger to board. Looked like expert flying to me, not luck.
The "single-engines are fine" guys wouldn't even argue that the operation would have been any safer in a TwinSquirrel.
We're not talking semantics here. I personally do not believe that what the Park Police did that day was "dangerous," nor would it be considered breaking "every rule in the book" on either side of the Atlantic. Now, if it had been two guys (a pilot and his traffic-reporter partner, say) out in their commercial LongRanger that day...
If anything, it's stimulated an interesting bent on aspects of helo flying. Looking over previous entries it would appear I may have been a little 'short' with Hoverman and for that I do apologise without reservation (even if you did slag me off on the twin Vs single thread about this EMS issue!).
I have a vested interest in this subject ever since we as a HEMS/Police unit were advised that some of our 'rescues' were bordering on the illegal for want of a better word. Up until then we had successfully completed innumerable 'rescues' some of which achieved national TV coverage in programmes like Police/camera/action and '999'.
Other units had done similar 'good' work:
The floods where a police helo rescued people from the club house roof / the police helo that dragged a suicidal woman back ashore using the skids to tow her / paramedic leaning off the skids whilst helo hovering inches above the sea, to grab a drowning child.
As a result of all these and others, the Home Office waded in and reminded our bosses that we were operating outside our remit. A massive debate took place resulting in inumerable discussions between the CAA / HO and police/HEMS units.
The end result: the statement 'protecting' the pilot from liability in these cases (written down in our rule book) was retracted in an amendment of the rules to avoid future misinterpretation
This is the interesting bit: Off the record, they all agree that should these situations occur again, they all know what they would do as individuals but they could NEVER legislate for it When you sit down and pour over it, you can understand why: If the rules and/or performance limits of the helo are compromised, there will ALWAYS be someone out there threatening to sue. Authorities therefore cannot legislate FOR these rescues even though they expect the pilot to go out and do his moral duty
The same goes for HEMS work. It is strictly regulated and a pilot can do his/her job 90% of the time. The performance requirements and rules are very flexible, but they do eventually draw the line...step over it and you'll suddenly find you've got no friends
The Potomac river is a beautiful example:
The helo driver was a true hero, irrespective of his background (mil/civvy). It is a call, hopefully, all of us would answer, honourably. BUT and it's a whopping BUT....
if the helo went into the river because, for instance he clipped some debris, or the engine iced up, or the skids got wedged under some wreckage, there is a chance additional casualties would have ensued. What would the authorities have done then? What would the estates of the airline victims have done? What would bystanders have done if they had been injured by the subsequent crash? A legal nightmare is it not. At the time, emotion masks everything and heroism rules the day. If things did go badly wrong though, I suspect the legal/insurance machine would fire up and months later, in the cold light of the day who's head would role????
You're damned if you do ...and damned if you don't
You know what they say: if you couldn't take a joke...you shouldn't have joined
Secretly, we all know what we would do...don't we?
My round.
I have a vested interest in this subject ever since we as a HEMS/Police unit were advised that some of our 'rescues' were bordering on the illegal for want of a better word. Up until then we had successfully completed innumerable 'rescues' some of which achieved national TV coverage in programmes like Police/camera/action and '999'.
Other units had done similar 'good' work:
The floods where a police helo rescued people from the club house roof / the police helo that dragged a suicidal woman back ashore using the skids to tow her / paramedic leaning off the skids whilst helo hovering inches above the sea, to grab a drowning child.
As a result of all these and others, the Home Office waded in and reminded our bosses that we were operating outside our remit. A massive debate took place resulting in inumerable discussions between the CAA / HO and police/HEMS units.
The end result: the statement 'protecting' the pilot from liability in these cases (written down in our rule book) was retracted in an amendment of the rules to avoid future misinterpretation
This is the interesting bit: Off the record, they all agree that should these situations occur again, they all know what they would do as individuals but they could NEVER legislate for it
When you sit down and pour over it, you can understand why: If the rules and/or performance limits of the helo are compromised, there will ALWAYS be someone out there threatening to sue. Authorities therefore cannot legislate FOR these rescues even though they expect the pilot to go out and do his moral duty The same goes for HEMS work. It is strictly regulated and a pilot can do his/her job 90% of the time. The performance requirements and rules are very flexible, but they do eventually draw the line...step over it and you'll suddenly find you've got no friends
The Potomac river is a beautiful example:
The helo driver was a true hero, irrespective of his background (mil/civvy). It is a call, hopefully, all of us would answer, honourably. BUT and it's a whopping BUT....
if the helo went into the river because, for instance he clipped some debris, or the engine iced up, or the skids got wedged under some wreckage, there is a chance additional casualties would have ensued. What would the authorities have done then? What would the estates of the airline victims have done? What would bystanders have done if they had been injured by the subsequent crash? A legal nightmare is it not. At the time, emotion masks everything and heroism rules the day. If things did go badly wrong though, I suspect the legal/insurance machine would fire up and months later, in the cold light of the day who's head would role????
You're damned if you do ...and damned if you don't
You know what they say: if you couldn't take a joke...you shouldn't have joined
Secretly, we all know what we would do...don't we?
My round.