HEMS - Regulations and saving life
Guest
Posts: n/a
Well PPRUNE FAN#1 as much as I admire the pilot of the Parks aircraft and would fully support his actions, I would also say that what he was doing would contravene a number of rules here in the UK. The obvious one is his inability to alight in a safe area (without damage to people or property) in the event of an engine failure. With one person hanging on his skid there is a chance that three people could have died if the rescue aircraft had lost an/ the engine! In that case, the pilot took a risk and it worked out fine (considering the circumstances). In defence of the legislators, they have to look at the worst case scenario. Flying Lawyer is a useful person to ask in this case. His arguments to defend fellow pilots in cases against the CAA are fine. But hypothetically, had that aircraft had a single engine failure whilst attempting the rescue and had the person being rescued died underneath said helicopter, and had that persons next of kin retained flying lawyer as there legal advisor (phew, a lot of ands there), then.
What approach would FL have taken in trying to sue the pants off
A. The Pilot fo attempting to rescue people in such a situation
B. The Pilots employer for not supervising the pilot correctly and thus enabling him to think he should carry out the attempted rescue (remember, we are talking hypothetically here!)
C. The regulator for not ensuring that all pilots are aware of there responsibilities in such cases.
I appreciate that there are a few hypothetical points here that may not have applied to the actual potomac rescue but I hope they illustrate my general thrust!
Or would FL have advised his clients that there was no possible case for the pilot to answer because he was trying to save life?
Now at this point I would boringly look through the ANO and ops manual to see what other rules he may have contravened, but I am at home and that is not the point. There may well be occasions when you consider breaking the rules, if it all goes well you may be back home to tea, medals and a hero's welcome, if it goes t*ts up you can bet your bottom dollar/ pound/ euro that your name will be off everybodys christmas card list within seconds.
What approach would FL have taken in trying to sue the pants off
A. The Pilot fo attempting to rescue people in such a situation
B. The Pilots employer for not supervising the pilot correctly and thus enabling him to think he should carry out the attempted rescue (remember, we are talking hypothetically here!)
C. The regulator for not ensuring that all pilots are aware of there responsibilities in such cases.
I appreciate that there are a few hypothetical points here that may not have applied to the actual potomac rescue but I hope they illustrate my general thrust!
Or would FL have advised his clients that there was no possible case for the pilot to answer because he was trying to save life?
Now at this point I would boringly look through the ANO and ops manual to see what other rules he may have contravened, but I am at home and that is not the point. There may well be occasions when you consider breaking the rules, if it all goes well you may be back home to tea, medals and a hero's welcome, if it goes t*ts up you can bet your bottom dollar/ pound/ euro that your name will be off everybodys christmas card list within seconds.
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: New York City
Posts: 820
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Prune Fan
Just seen your post and questions. Both John du p and Thomas have already given full explanations, no point in me repeating.
Thomas
You and Hoverman are not far apart when it gets to the gritty. It's damned if you do, damned if you don't at the moment but Hoverman argues the lawmakers should change things so the pilot using his best judgement in an emergency situation/attempting a rescue has a defence to prosecution or being sued. I think that's good sense but until that happens, hero pilots are still putting their heads on the block.
You're right, "secretly ......"!
Just seen your post and questions. Both John du p and Thomas have already given full explanations, no point in me repeating.
Thomas
You and Hoverman are not far apart when it gets to the gritty. It's damned if you do, damned if you don't at the moment but Hoverman argues the lawmakers should change things so the pilot using his best judgement in an emergency situation/attempting a rescue has a defence to prosecution or being sued. I think that's good sense but until that happens, hero pilots are still putting their heads on the block.
You're right, "secretly ......"!
Bronx sidestepped:
Both TC and Jdp are in the UK. YOU, Bronx, are in the U.S. So I'm just curious about your frame of reference. You stated that the Park Police pilot broke "every rule in the book." So I want to know specifically,
...Which book?
...Which rules?
See, there's a "book" of rules which supercedes every law book: it is our moral code. It's in our DNA. We do what we can to help preserve human life. It is that codebook which tells us, internally, what is "right" and what is "wrong."
We can talk lawsuits from now until kingdom come, but there is an overriding moral obligation that those Park Police pilots had - the requirement to try to do something given the technology and skills at their disposal. Remember, if not for the invention of the helicopter, ALL 79 people aboard that 737 would have perished. The bystanders on the shore would've been able to do nothing but watch everyone freeze to death.
I suppose those Park Police pilots could have sat in their warm, cozy office and refused to fly based on the rationalization that the day was too snowy and/or the operation was too risky, or that they hadn't been trained to drag people out of the water with their skids. But they did not. Indeed, they could not. They responded to a call for help. Hey, they were policemen - that was their job! When they got to the scene, they improvised; there just aren't rulebooks and official manuals to cover every situation humans (especially our policemen) sometimes find themselves in.
Perhaps Bronx was just being facetious or "cute" or careless with his phrasing. But if he really does think that the U.S. Park Police pilot and his paramedic broke "every rule in the book," then perhaps he should take a little trip up to Washington D.C. I'm sure Don Usher and Gene Windsor would have some words of enlightenment for him.
But what if, in the course of trying to SAVE LIVES, they crashed and hurt one of the bystander/gawkers? Would someone be lowlife enough to sue? Who knows. And if they did, who cares? What's really important here? Only the most paranoid girly-men (what you yanks call "wussies") would worry about a lawsuit MORE than trying to save someone's life. God help us if that's the society we've become, chaps.
Just seen your post and questions. Both John du p and Thomas have already given full explanations, no point in me repeating.
...Which book?
...Which rules?
See, there's a "book" of rules which supercedes every law book: it is our moral code. It's in our DNA. We do what we can to help preserve human life. It is that codebook which tells us, internally, what is "right" and what is "wrong."
We can talk lawsuits from now until kingdom come, but there is an overriding moral obligation that those Park Police pilots had - the requirement to try to do something given the technology and skills at their disposal. Remember, if not for the invention of the helicopter, ALL 79 people aboard that 737 would have perished. The bystanders on the shore would've been able to do nothing but watch everyone freeze to death.
I suppose those Park Police pilots could have sat in their warm, cozy office and refused to fly based on the rationalization that the day was too snowy and/or the operation was too risky, or that they hadn't been trained to drag people out of the water with their skids. But they did not. Indeed, they could not. They responded to a call for help. Hey, they were policemen - that was their job! When they got to the scene, they improvised; there just aren't rulebooks and official manuals to cover every situation humans (especially our policemen) sometimes find themselves in.
Perhaps Bronx was just being facetious or "cute" or careless with his phrasing. But if he really does think that the U.S. Park Police pilot and his paramedic broke "every rule in the book," then perhaps he should take a little trip up to Washington D.C. I'm sure Don Usher and Gene Windsor would have some words of enlightenment for him.
But what if, in the course of trying to SAVE LIVES, they crashed and hurt one of the bystander/gawkers? Would someone be lowlife enough to sue? Who knows. And if they did, who cares? What's really important here? Only the most paranoid girly-men (what you yanks call "wussies") would worry about a lawsuit MORE than trying to save someone's life. God help us if that's the society we've become, chaps.
Join Date: May 2000
Location: Phuket
Posts: 297
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Long ago I was given some priceless advice. At the time I was flying in Central America and "away from the flag pole". I was told "fly whatever your abilities, morals and common sense dictate". To this day I use that as my baseline standard.
Yes, more then likely I would have flown and landed on the towers if I thought that there was a reasonable expectation the mission could have been accomplished and if I had a crew with me I would have asked first. If there were any objection I would have landed and dropped them somewhere first before attempting a pick up. I think that if I saw some survivors on top of the building and I did not at least try for a rescue I would have had a hard time living with myself. Tomas, I really feel sorry for your milquetoast attitude. Maybe if you were there you may have changed your mind. I hope so.
j
Yes, more then likely I would have flown and landed on the towers if I thought that there was a reasonable expectation the mission could have been accomplished and if I had a crew with me I would have asked first. If there were any objection I would have landed and dropped them somewhere first before attempting a pick up. I think that if I saw some survivors on top of the building and I did not at least try for a rescue I would have had a hard time living with myself. Tomas, I really feel sorry for your milquetoast attitude. Maybe if you were there you may have changed your mind. I hope so.
j
Well, for this one old helicopter pilot.....somewhere in the very bottom of my being.....is a notion ....that I shall not stand by and watch innocent people die without doing anything and everything I can do to help them. If I am in a position to assist...I will show up....not stand there with a video camera or cell phone stuck in my ear talking to the live news channel. If it means chucking the rule book out the window then we can just discuss it later....I might be in court but I will be standing there with head up and shoulders back. The rulebook is a guide....not a commandmant.
Sometimes in this life you just have to stick your neck out.....those that do make it a better world to live in. The question is when to do that and how far to go in your efforts. That is a very individual question that only we ourselves can make.
Sometimes in this life you just have to stick your neck out.....those that do make it a better world to live in. The question is when to do that and how far to go in your efforts. That is a very individual question that only we ourselves can make.
Join Date: Mar 2000
Location: UK
Posts: 5,197
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Pprune Fan
You've got the wrong end of the stick.
Bronx was arguing in support Hoverman's opinion of doing what you can to save lives even if it means breaking rules, against TC and ARIS stricter approach to the rules (since modified/explained in TC's case) and in admiration of the heroism of the pilot in the Potomac rescue.
You've got the wrong end of the stick.
Bronx was arguing in support Hoverman's opinion of doing what you can to save lives even if it means breaking rules, against TC and ARIS stricter approach to the rules (since modified/explained in TC's case) and in admiration of the heroism of the pilot in the Potomac rescue.
Heliport wrote:
Then why the back-handed swipe at them? Not much of a compliment or endorsement if you ask me. "Broke every rule in the book"? Says who? Flippant statements like that only perpetuate the misguided idea that Usher and Windsor were somehow dangerously or perhaps recklessly negligent in what they did. B*llocks! If I were in their place, I sure wouldn't want somebody coming at me after the fact and saying that about me.
Don Usher was obviously a very capable and competent pilot who kept his cool and, along with Gene Windsor devised an ingenious way of saving some lives that would otherwise have been lost. It is just plain WRONG to characterize what they did that day as flagrantly breaking rules. So I'm just asking: Which "rules?" AFM limitations? FAR's? U.S.P.P. guidelines? Rules of common sense or decency? Rule of thumb? Area rule?
Pprune Fan
You've got the wrong end of the stick.
Bronx was arguing in support Hoverman's opinion of doing what you can to save lives even if it means breaking rules, against TC and ARIS stricter approach to the rules (since modified/explained in TC's case) and in admiration of the heroism of the pilot in the Potomac rescue.
You've got the wrong end of the stick.
Bronx was arguing in support Hoverman's opinion of doing what you can to save lives even if it means breaking rules, against TC and ARIS stricter approach to the rules (since modified/explained in TC's case) and in admiration of the heroism of the pilot in the Potomac rescue.
Then why the back-handed swipe at them? Not much of a compliment or endorsement if you ask me. "Broke every rule in the book"? Says who? Flippant statements like that only perpetuate the misguided idea that Usher and Windsor were somehow dangerously or perhaps recklessly negligent in what they did. B*llocks! If I were in their place, I sure wouldn't want somebody coming at me after the fact and saying that about me.
Don Usher was obviously a very capable and competent pilot who kept his cool and, along with Gene Windsor devised an ingenious way of saving some lives that would otherwise have been lost. It is just plain WRONG to characterize what they did that day as flagrantly breaking rules. So I'm just asking: Which "rules?" AFM limitations? FAR's? U.S.P.P. guidelines? Rules of common sense or decency? Rule of thumb? Area rule?
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: UK
Posts: 183
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Prune Fan
Get back in your pram and read again how the discussion developed. It wasn't a "backhanded swipe" at them.
At the stage of the debate when some contributors were pushing strict adherence to the rules and condemning pilots who use their own judgement in exceptional circumstances if it's safe and necessary, Bronx gave the Potomac rescue as an unforgettable illustration of heroism by a pilot who bravely did what needed to be done to save lives.
Others have pointed out reasons why, if it had gone wrong, he might have been sued. Sadly, in our litigation culture they might have a point, see TC's and Jdp's posts, but as you've probably gathered, I'm in the Bronx, SASless, Flying Lawyer camp on this as you obviously are ...... and I suspect deep down so is my mate TC.
Get back in your pram and read again how the discussion developed. It wasn't a "backhanded swipe" at them.
At the stage of the debate when some contributors were pushing strict adherence to the rules and condemning pilots who use their own judgement in exceptional circumstances if it's safe and necessary, Bronx gave the Potomac rescue as an unforgettable illustration of heroism by a pilot who bravely did what needed to be done to save lives.
Others have pointed out reasons why, if it had gone wrong, he might have been sued. Sadly, in our litigation culture they might have a point, see TC's and Jdp's posts, but as you've probably gathered, I'm in the Bronx, SASless, Flying Lawyer camp on this as you obviously are ...... and I suspect deep down so is my mate TC.
Last edited by Hoverman; 16th Oct 2002 at 21:36.
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: Texas
Posts: 512
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
This really has nothing to do with the gist of the discussion, but in point of fact in the US public use aircraft -i.e., those operated by any government entity, are not & legally cannot be regulated by the FAA. The FAR's simply do not apply. The entity operating the aircraft may, & usually do, choose to follow the regulations. It's the same for military, police, or any other government entity. Pilots of government-operated, public-use aircraft are normally immune from lawsuits & prosecution, & in point of fact aren't even required to have a pilot's license.
Whether any of this is dangerous is debatable, as evidenced by this thread.
Whether any of this is dangerous is debatable, as evidenced by this thread.
Stan wrote:
That was exactly my point, old chap! It's all very well and good to proclaim someone a "hero" and then add (for dramatic effect?) and he broke every rule in the book doing it! But that's not always the case, and I don't think it was with the Air Florida crash/rescue either.
We've become such a paranoid, milquetoast society that we think anything out of the ordinary must necessarily be against the rules. You know, Stan, the old if it's not specifically permitted, then it must be prohibited. Sad.
This really has nothing to do with the gist of the discussion, but in point of fact in the US public use aircraft -i.e., those operated by any government entity, are not & legally cannot be regulated by the FAA. The FAR's simply do not apply. The entity operating the aircraft may, & usually do, choose to follow the regulations. It's the same for military, police, or any other government entity. Pilots of government-operated, public-use aircraft are normally immune from lawsuits & prosecution, & in point of fact aren't even required to have a pilot's license.
That was exactly my point, old chap! It's all very well and good to proclaim someone a "hero" and then add (for dramatic effect?) and he broke every rule in the book doing it! But that's not always the case, and I don't think it was with the Air Florida crash/rescue either.
We've become such a paranoid, milquetoast society that we think anything out of the ordinary must necessarily be against the rules. You know, Stan, the old if it's not specifically permitted, then it must be prohibited. Sad.
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: Can
Posts: 172
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Ok
So if you are a government agency you may be above the rules and regs......that's no surprise.
What if your commercial operator under contract to one of these agencies.....
What if your under contract to a specific hospital.....
Cheers
So if you are a government agency you may be above the rules and regs......that's no surprise.
What if your commercial operator under contract to one of these agencies.....
What if your under contract to a specific hospital.....
Cheers
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: Texas
Posts: 512
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
All commercial operations are regulated by the FAA. If you are a commercial firm contracted to a government agency, hospital, or anyone else, it's a commercial operation. The government agency must own & operate the aircraft to be outside the scope of the FAA. There are lots of these, BTW. In addition to the military, most states, & many counties & cities operate aircraft, many of them surplus military aircraft. Note, however, that if the government entity charges another entity for the flight, it becomes a commercial operation, & subject to FAA scrutiny. Most operations do follow the FAR's, but they do it voluntarily.
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: Can
Posts: 172
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Stan
You are absolutely right IMHO.
Part of the reason that government agencies contract out is cost....the other reason is LIABILITY.
If you are breaking the regs and someone dies.....they will wash their hands of it and point the finger...
For that matter the company you are working for will probably do the same.
A sobering thought.
Cheers
You are absolutely right IMHO.
Part of the reason that government agencies contract out is cost....the other reason is LIABILITY.
If you are breaking the regs and someone dies.....they will wash their hands of it and point the finger...
For that matter the company you are working for will probably do the same.
A sobering thought.
Cheers
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: New York City
Posts: 820
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Thomas /Steve
Dunno if 'milquetoast' would make it into your Oxford english dictionary, but it's a way of saying 'timid' or 'unassertive'. It comes from the name of a very timid comic strip character here way back when, called Caspar Milquetoast. It's one of those pompous words (like "opined") which you don't hear too often but is used by pseud journo types ..... and other pretentious people who hope they'll come across as 'intellectual' if they use a word most folks don't know or don't use ..........if you get my drift.
Dunno if 'milquetoast' would make it into your Oxford english dictionary, but it's a way of saying 'timid' or 'unassertive'. It comes from the name of a very timid comic strip character here way back when, called Caspar Milquetoast. It's one of those pompous words (like "opined") which you don't hear too often but is used by pseud journo types ..... and other pretentious people who hope they'll come across as 'intellectual' if they use a word most folks don't know or don't use ..........if you get my drift.
Last edited by Bronx; 18th Oct 2002 at 12:28.
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: N20,W99
Age: 53
Posts: 1,119
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Different Point of View
On a different point of view, over here you can fly ANYWAY you want as long as you don't crash, the rules are sooo poorly written or old, even the own authorities don't know them! So we usually "revert to common sense" when flying.
A couple of years ago I was flying in Honduras doing relief work for hurricane Mitch, as we flew over the Mayan ruins of Copan, one of the passengers suggested we land and quickly visit the ruins since we were already there, so we did, then as we were coming out we were approached by a very stressed out gentleman who asked us to take some ladies who had been severely injured in a minivan crash to nearby San Pedro Sula, by the time we had arrived in San Pedro and found ANY hospital from the air, we had problably broken every ICAO regulation regarding, WX Minima, Suitable landing site, MAX TO WT, Comunications, Passenger capacity, Fuel reserves, Etc. Etc.
I know it all sounds like a stupid thing to do, but now that I think about it, the flight at the time was done with a relative measure of safety, it was all a series of calculated decisions, evaluating every possible "what if" and having a way out of mostly everything. Even if the rules would have NEVER allowed this flight, and this is what I really love about flying helicopters . . . .
sometimes its all up to us, our ability, common sense and experience, there is no one to tell you and there are no ops. manuals you can read to help you decide what to do, it all comes down to the pilot, and the decision you make regarding a flight.
A couple of years ago I was flying in Honduras doing relief work for hurricane Mitch, as we flew over the Mayan ruins of Copan, one of the passengers suggested we land and quickly visit the ruins since we were already there, so we did, then as we were coming out we were approached by a very stressed out gentleman who asked us to take some ladies who had been severely injured in a minivan crash to nearby San Pedro Sula, by the time we had arrived in San Pedro and found ANY hospital from the air, we had problably broken every ICAO regulation regarding, WX Minima, Suitable landing site, MAX TO WT, Comunications, Passenger capacity, Fuel reserves, Etc. Etc.
I know it all sounds like a stupid thing to do, but now that I think about it, the flight at the time was done with a relative measure of safety, it was all a series of calculated decisions, evaluating every possible "what if" and having a way out of mostly everything. Even if the rules would have NEVER allowed this flight, and this is what I really love about flying helicopters . . . .
sometimes its all up to us, our ability, common sense and experience, there is no one to tell you and there are no ops. manuals you can read to help you decide what to do, it all comes down to the pilot, and the decision you make regarding a flight.
Last edited by BlenderPilot; 18th Oct 2002 at 16:57.
Oh no, another one of those pompous words!
Bronx postulated:
Oh, we get your drift, Bronx. But you know old chap, some people don't have to pretend to be intellectual. Some people are not careless or indiscriminate with language. And some people actually think about what they want to say before pounding the keys.
I won't apologize for being intelligent, but I am sorry if the schools there in the Bronx didn't adequately prepare you for conversation with adults (thank the NYC public school system for that - I'm sure you communicate very well with your homies). But please try to keep up. This is, after all, an international forum. I've found that if you keep a dictionary near the computer, it'll help a lot when people use words you don't know.
It's one of those pompous words (like "opined") which you don't hear too often but is used by pseud journo types ..... and other pretentious people who hope they'll come across as 'intellectual' if they use a word most folks don't know or don't use ..........if you get my drift.
Oh, we get your drift, Bronx. But you know old chap, some people don't have to pretend to be intellectual. Some people are not careless or indiscriminate with language. And some people actually think about what they want to say before pounding the keys.
I won't apologize for being intelligent, but I am sorry if the schools there in the Bronx didn't adequately prepare you for conversation with adults (thank the NYC public school system for that - I'm sure you communicate very well with your homies). But please try to keep up. This is, after all, an international forum. I've found that if you keep a dictionary near the computer, it'll help a lot when people use words you don't know.
Mod God: At the risk of being pedantic (of which I've already been accused), I full well know that Bronx did not accuse me of being intelligent. Then again, coming from the Bronx, he might not recognize intelligence if it pistol-whipped him over the noggin on the D Train or whatever they call the Underground over there. But he mentioned pretentious people who hope they'll come across as 'intellectual' and I have no doubt about whom he was referring.
I wonder why you lot always make things personal and turn vicious? I simply and repeatedly asked Bronx to explain what he meant by a particular phrase he used to describe an event, and everybody starts dancing like I'm shooting at their feet! I would say that you helicopter pilots are nothing but neurotic nutjobs, but I won't. For two reasons:
1) I'm not at all sure that Bronx actually is a pilot; and
2) You'd probably all mistake me for that Lu Zuckerman person or somebody held in equal disdain.
G'day!
I wonder why you lot always make things personal and turn vicious? I simply and repeatedly asked Bronx to explain what he meant by a particular phrase he used to describe an event, and everybody starts dancing like I'm shooting at their feet! I would say that you helicopter pilots are nothing but neurotic nutjobs, but I won't. For two reasons:
1) I'm not at all sure that Bronx actually is a pilot; and
2) You'd probably all mistake me for that Lu Zuckerman person or somebody held in equal disdain.
G'day!