Best EMS helicopter?
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: UK
Posts: 231
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Hoverman.
Sorry about the length of the reply. But these two extracts, taken a day apart show the advantage of TWO over ONE quite well. Not poking anything the American way, the CAA has a lot to learn from the FAA as well as the other way around. To be honest, if as a patient in need, I wouldn't care about 1,2 or 3 engines. But as a pilot I would. Some nice flying by the pilots concerned, well done.
NTSB Identification: SEA01LA085
Nonscheduled 14 CFRPart 135 operation of Air Taxi & Commuter Mercy Flights Inc.
Accident occurred Saturday, May 05, 2001 at Medford, OR
Aircraft:MBB BO-105C, registration: N105RH
Injuries: 4 Uninjured.
This is preliminary information, subject to change, and may contain errors. Any errors in this report will be corrected when the final report has been completed.
On May 5, 2001, approximately 1700 Pacific daylight time, a Eurocopter (formerly Messerschmitt-Bolkow-Blohm [MBB]) BO-105C helicopter, N105RH, registered to TL Forest Products, Inc. of Ashland, Oregon, and being operated by Mercy Flights Inc. of Medford, Oregon, on a 14 CFR 135 non-scheduled air ambulance flight, experienced a failure of the number 1 engine and fire in the number 1 engine compartment. The pilot landed the aircraft safely at the Medford, Oregon, airport, and the fire was extinguished by airport rescue/firefighting (ARFF) personnel. There were no injuries to the airline transport pilot-in-command, two crew members, or passenger/patient on board; however, the fire substantially damaged the helicopter. The accident sequence of events began shortly after the patient was picked up. Visual meteorological conditions were reported at Medford at 1656. The type of flight plan filed for the flight, if any, is currently unknown.
Preliminary information reported to the NTSB indicated that shortly after patient pickup, near the Medford airport, the number 1 engine lost power. The pilot continued to the airport on the number 2 engine. Approaching the airport, the Medford tower controller advised the pilot that the aircraft was trailing smoke; preliminary reports indicated that there was no fire warning in the cockpit associated with this report. The pilot subsequently landed the helicopter on taxiway A at the airport. The pilot then noted a fire warning. The aircraft occupants exited the helicopter without injury, and ARFF arrived on scene and extinguished the fire.
According to the FAA aircraft registry, the accident helicopter is equipped with two Rolls-Royce (formerly Allison) 250 series turboshaft engines. An inspector from the FAA's Portland, Oregon, Flight Standards District Office (FSDO), who responded to the scene and performed an initial post-accident examination of the helicopter, reported to the NTSB that wet oil and combustion products were both present in the number 1 engine compartment, and that no oil was found in the number 1 engine oil tank. The inspector reported that the fuel lines to the number 1 engine appeared to be intact. He further stated that he found the push-pull control tubes for the main rotor melted where they run through or near the engine compartment.
----------------*--------*--------*----------------------
NTSB Identification: FTW01FA115
Nonscheduled 14 CFRPart 135 operation of Air Taxi & Commuter AIR LOGISTICS L L C
Accident occurred Friday, May 04, 2001 at Vermillion 44, GM
Aircraft:Bell 407, registration: N917AL
Injuries: 3 Uninjured.
This is preliminary information, subject to change, and may contain errors. Any errors in this report will be corrected when the final report has been completed.
On May 4, 2001, at 1613 central daylight time, a Bell 407 single-engine helicopter, N917AL, was substantially damaged following a loss of engine power during a precautionary landing near the Vermillion 44 offshore platform in the Gulf of Mexico. The commercial pilot and his two passengers were not injured. The helicopter was registered to and operated by Air Logistics LLC, of New Iberia, Louisiana. Visual meteorological conditions prevailed and a company visual flight rules flight plan was filed for the 14 Code of Federal Regulations Part 135 on-demand air taxi flight. The helicopter departed the High Island 368 offshore platform at 1535, and was destined for Intercostal City, Louisiana.
According to the pilot's statement, while enroute from High Island 368 to Intercoastal City, a "slight vibration became noticeable." After a few minutes, the vibration became more pronounced, and was accompanied by a noise. During a precautionary landing to an offshore platform, engine power was lost. The pilot then initiated an autorotation to the water, deployed the skid floats, and landed safely.
Examination of the helicopter, after recovery by the operator, revealed that the K-flex drive shaft had fractured.
Sorry about the length of the reply. But these two extracts, taken a day apart show the advantage of TWO over ONE quite well. Not poking anything the American way, the CAA has a lot to learn from the FAA as well as the other way around. To be honest, if as a patient in need, I wouldn't care about 1,2 or 3 engines. But as a pilot I would. Some nice flying by the pilots concerned, well done.
NTSB Identification: SEA01LA085
Nonscheduled 14 CFRPart 135 operation of Air Taxi & Commuter Mercy Flights Inc.
Accident occurred Saturday, May 05, 2001 at Medford, OR
Aircraft:MBB BO-105C, registration: N105RH
Injuries: 4 Uninjured.
This is preliminary information, subject to change, and may contain errors. Any errors in this report will be corrected when the final report has been completed.
On May 5, 2001, approximately 1700 Pacific daylight time, a Eurocopter (formerly Messerschmitt-Bolkow-Blohm [MBB]) BO-105C helicopter, N105RH, registered to TL Forest Products, Inc. of Ashland, Oregon, and being operated by Mercy Flights Inc. of Medford, Oregon, on a 14 CFR 135 non-scheduled air ambulance flight, experienced a failure of the number 1 engine and fire in the number 1 engine compartment. The pilot landed the aircraft safely at the Medford, Oregon, airport, and the fire was extinguished by airport rescue/firefighting (ARFF) personnel. There were no injuries to the airline transport pilot-in-command, two crew members, or passenger/patient on board; however, the fire substantially damaged the helicopter. The accident sequence of events began shortly after the patient was picked up. Visual meteorological conditions were reported at Medford at 1656. The type of flight plan filed for the flight, if any, is currently unknown.
Preliminary information reported to the NTSB indicated that shortly after patient pickup, near the Medford airport, the number 1 engine lost power. The pilot continued to the airport on the number 2 engine. Approaching the airport, the Medford tower controller advised the pilot that the aircraft was trailing smoke; preliminary reports indicated that there was no fire warning in the cockpit associated with this report. The pilot subsequently landed the helicopter on taxiway A at the airport. The pilot then noted a fire warning. The aircraft occupants exited the helicopter without injury, and ARFF arrived on scene and extinguished the fire.
According to the FAA aircraft registry, the accident helicopter is equipped with two Rolls-Royce (formerly Allison) 250 series turboshaft engines. An inspector from the FAA's Portland, Oregon, Flight Standards District Office (FSDO), who responded to the scene and performed an initial post-accident examination of the helicopter, reported to the NTSB that wet oil and combustion products were both present in the number 1 engine compartment, and that no oil was found in the number 1 engine oil tank. The inspector reported that the fuel lines to the number 1 engine appeared to be intact. He further stated that he found the push-pull control tubes for the main rotor melted where they run through or near the engine compartment.
----------------*--------*--------*----------------------
NTSB Identification: FTW01FA115
Nonscheduled 14 CFRPart 135 operation of Air Taxi & Commuter AIR LOGISTICS L L C
Accident occurred Friday, May 04, 2001 at Vermillion 44, GM
Aircraft:Bell 407, registration: N917AL
Injuries: 3 Uninjured.
This is preliminary information, subject to change, and may contain errors. Any errors in this report will be corrected when the final report has been completed.
On May 4, 2001, at 1613 central daylight time, a Bell 407 single-engine helicopter, N917AL, was substantially damaged following a loss of engine power during a precautionary landing near the Vermillion 44 offshore platform in the Gulf of Mexico. The commercial pilot and his two passengers were not injured. The helicopter was registered to and operated by Air Logistics LLC, of New Iberia, Louisiana. Visual meteorological conditions prevailed and a company visual flight rules flight plan was filed for the 14 Code of Federal Regulations Part 135 on-demand air taxi flight. The helicopter departed the High Island 368 offshore platform at 1535, and was destined for Intercostal City, Louisiana.
According to the pilot's statement, while enroute from High Island 368 to Intercoastal City, a "slight vibration became noticeable." After a few minutes, the vibration became more pronounced, and was accompanied by a noise. During a precautionary landing to an offshore platform, engine power was lost. The pilot then initiated an autorotation to the water, deployed the skid floats, and landed safely.
Examination of the helicopter, after recovery by the operator, revealed that the K-flex drive shaft had fractured.
Join Date: May 2000
Location: Some corner of a foreign field.
Posts: 46
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I fly a Bell 412 on SAR/EMS tasks here in Australia where there is no legal requirement to operate twin engine helicopters - unless the contract specifies that.
I believe that the issue here is not one of the number of engines, rather the capability of the machine.
Most EMS accidents are attributed to human factors - not engine failures. These factors often include CFIT, inadvertant IMC, disorientation etc - particularly at night.
Operating an IFR machine with coupled auto pilot, possibly two pilots and well trained crewman would help reduce the risk.These aids are generally not available on single engine machines.
My company also operate a single engine machine but we do not use it at night for SAR/EMS tasks as we do not believe it is as safe or as capable as the twin.
I personally feel safer in a twin having suffered two engine failures in my career, but I see no problem with operating a single engine day VFR EMS service where funding is a problem.
[ 11 July 2001: Message edited by: Out of Balance ]
I believe that the issue here is not one of the number of engines, rather the capability of the machine.
Most EMS accidents are attributed to human factors - not engine failures. These factors often include CFIT, inadvertant IMC, disorientation etc - particularly at night.
Operating an IFR machine with coupled auto pilot, possibly two pilots and well trained crewman would help reduce the risk.These aids are generally not available on single engine machines.
My company also operate a single engine machine but we do not use it at night for SAR/EMS tasks as we do not believe it is as safe or as capable as the twin.
I personally feel safer in a twin having suffered two engine failures in my career, but I see no problem with operating a single engine day VFR EMS service where funding is a problem.
[ 11 July 2001: Message edited by: Out of Balance ]
Avoid imitations
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Wandering the FIR and cyberspace often at highly unsociable times
Posts: 14,583
Received 441 Likes
on
233 Posts
It isn't long ago that the only EMS aircraft in UK were unstabilised, single engined RAF and Navy SAR machines, i.e. the Whirlwind. No-one complained about that. That aircraft had a very good safety record and it certainly saved many more lives than it lost.
When the Wessex was later introduced it wasn't advertised that it was safer because it had two engines; what was emphasised was that it was a more capable aircraft, mainly in range and payload.
Engine failures don't worry most pilots as much as tail rotor failures (myself included) yet there is no requirement for a back-up system on a tail rotor driveshaft on any helicopter that I can recall.
ShyT
When the Wessex was later introduced it wasn't advertised that it was safer because it had two engines; what was emphasised was that it was a more capable aircraft, mainly in range and payload.
Engine failures don't worry most pilots as much as tail rotor failures (myself included) yet there is no requirement for a back-up system on a tail rotor driveshaft on any helicopter that I can recall.
ShyT
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: All over the place...
Posts: 18
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
New Helicopter EMS for Perth WA
The WA Government sent out a media release today announcing that they would be going out to Tender for a state funded rescue helicopter, providing some $3.5 million bucks to kick it off... 
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: Out Back
Posts: 23
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
WA already has SAR/EMS helicopter in the form of the WA Police Air Support Units' BK117.
Maybe if the Govt. funded that properly, WA wouldn't have the headache it has now.
Just wondering how far the budget will stretch, and what about the budget for subsequent years.
Best of luck Ms. Roberts (Minister of Police/Emergency Services)
Maybe if the Govt. funded that properly, WA wouldn't have the headache it has now.
Just wondering how far the budget will stretch, and what about the budget for subsequent years.
Best of luck Ms. Roberts (Minister of Police/Emergency Services)
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: All over the place...
Posts: 18
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The WA Police Heli is not a dedicated SAR/EMS helicopter at all, the people of WA do need a 24hr dedicated service. If the WA police Airwing could do the job I'm sure they would
I have just watched the Ch10 news and saw that those two guys rowing from Lancelin across the indian ocean activated their beacon and were winched aboard the RAAF Rescue Helicopter today, why then didn't the WA police airwing go. I'm not bagging the Airwing, not by a long shot, I agree they deserve more funding, however it does highlight the need for a more capable service than we have now
I have just watched the Ch10 news and saw that those two guys rowing from Lancelin across the indian ocean activated their beacon and were winched aboard the RAAF Rescue Helicopter today, why then didn't the WA police airwing go. I'm not bagging the Airwing, not by a long shot, I agree they deserve more funding, however it does highlight the need for a more capable service than we have now
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: dunnunder
Posts: 129
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Mustnt have been watching very hard WB - RAAF doesnt have any choppers. All Army or Navy. Generally, RAN only get involved if it is beyond the capability of civil SAR agencies to do the hero stuff - out of range, night, bad weather etc etc. Perhaps they did this one because there is nothing capable of the job in WA. Does seem strange that such a huge and generally independant state as WA only has one polie chopper and no SAR/EMS choppers at all!! S'pose it all comes down to the mighty (?) Aus$. Hope things over there improve and more choppers for this sort of service start to appear.
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: Out Back
Posts: 23
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Wineboy,
You are right the police BK is not a dedicated SAR/EMS machine that is only because of funding and staffing levels.
The reason that the Air Wing didn't go to Lancelin to perform the rescue is that the winch is U/S. Not because it was beyond there capability.
For w_ocker the RAAF machine is actually a Canadian Helicopter S76, on contract to provide SAR coverage for the RAAF pilots.
The BK is the helicopter operated by WA Police.
You are right the police BK is not a dedicated SAR/EMS machine that is only because of funding and staffing levels.
The reason that the Air Wing didn't go to Lancelin to perform the rescue is that the winch is U/S. Not because it was beyond there capability.
For w_ocker the RAAF machine is actually a Canadian Helicopter S76, on contract to provide SAR coverage for the RAAF pilots.
The BK is the helicopter operated by WA Police.
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: All over the place...
Posts: 18
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
w_ocker
"Mustnt have been watching very hard WB - RAAF doesnt have any choppers. All Army or Navy. Generally, RAN only get involved if it is beyond the capability of civil SAR agencies to do the hero stuff - out of range, night, bad weather etc etc. "
Infact w_ocker, the RAAF have 5 S76's operated by CHC Helicopters, all providing dedicated SAR Services for the RAAF.
The Airwing should be used for Law Enforcement, like the other states, with a back-up capability for SAR etc. Not dedicated SAR/EMS...
Cheers
"Mustnt have been watching very hard WB - RAAF doesnt have any choppers. All Army or Navy. Generally, RAN only get involved if it is beyond the capability of civil SAR agencies to do the hero stuff - out of range, night, bad weather etc etc. "
Infact w_ocker, the RAAF have 5 S76's operated by CHC Helicopters, all providing dedicated SAR Services for the RAAF.
The Airwing should be used for Law Enforcement, like the other states, with a back-up capability for SAR etc. Not dedicated SAR/EMS...
Cheers
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: All over the place...
Posts: 18
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
No drama's w_ocker, I've been interested in this EMS thing ever since I moved to WA, several years ago... I'm just hoping it does get of the ground (no pun intended) no matter who operates the service. Police, Private Contractor, Community Sponsered.
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: Lost in thought
Posts: 103
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Best EMS configs??
Trying to understand EMS configs, and separate fact from fiction (get an un-tainted opinion.)
Cruisng the brochures (air methods, OEMs, etc)
1) I see some with medical attendant at the head, but with little access to the sides (especially in two litter configuration.) I am told medical attendant at the head is more important than access to the side. True or False? and Why? (EC-135s provide at the head, but an A-109 photo I saw had attendants at the side.)
2) I see many configurations with patient's head forward, other with it aft. Does it make a difference - so long as the attendant has access? I've been told head-forward is preferred, but then the attendant at the head has to sit aft facing (which most people don't like) and in normal flight attitude, the head is down. Maybe that's preferred (ie: feet elevated) but not always. I know that if I was conscious, I'd want to be feet-forward.
Not my area directly, but I'd like to understand.
Avnx EO
Cruisng the brochures (air methods, OEMs, etc)
1) I see some with medical attendant at the head, but with little access to the sides (especially in two litter configuration.) I am told medical attendant at the head is more important than access to the side. True or False? and Why? (EC-135s provide at the head, but an A-109 photo I saw had attendants at the side.)
2) I see many configurations with patient's head forward, other with it aft. Does it make a difference - so long as the attendant has access? I've been told head-forward is preferred, but then the attendant at the head has to sit aft facing (which most people don't like) and in normal flight attitude, the head is down. Maybe that's preferred (ie: feet elevated) but not always. I know that if I was conscious, I'd want to be feet-forward.
Not my area directly, but I'd like to understand.
Avnx EO
We fly EC135. In the single stretcher configuration (which is 80%) of the time, we allow the paramedic the option of alongside the patients upper body section, or from ahead leaning over the head/chest of the patient. The latter is the preferred option for them because they can easily do the paddles. The side option makes it easier for CPR.
In the two stretcher config. we can only do the ahead option for obvious reasons. I don't think it matterstoo much which angle the paramedics come from as long as they can get to the head and chest area.
In the two stretcher config. we can only do the ahead option for obvious reasons. I don't think it matterstoo much which angle the paramedics come from as long as they can get to the head and chest area.
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: USA
Posts: 50
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
It depends upon how in depth the medical attention is going to be. If it is just a "scoop and swoop" mission, meaning the helicopter is just there for the speed of transport and not for the skills of the medical attendant, then crew seating is going to be secondary to ease of loading and unloading of patient. If the medical crew is going to be doing advanced procedures such as intubation in flight, then a medical attendant at the head is a necessity. For the doctor/nurse/medic to have a clear shot at the patient's airway, the gold standard is to have the patients head sitting between the caregivers legs. Flew Twinstar's, BO-105's, 222's and BK's. All had medical seating at patients head. Flew Agusta 109's and Bell 206l's that did not. No comparisom for the medical crew. They usually would not intubate in the aircraft on the Bell and Agusta, which could lead to longer time on scene since they would opt to do it on the ground prior to loading.
Patients head facing forward or aft isn't really a big deal. You have to remember that the vast majority of patients that are riding in an EMS helicopter are never going to remember the ride!
Good luck.
Patients head facing forward or aft isn't really a big deal. You have to remember that the vast majority of patients that are riding in an EMS helicopter are never going to remember the ride!
Good luck.
Join Date: Sep 2001
Location: UK
Posts: 26
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The 109 E EMS allows medical crew access at the head (with the front seat turned around) to allow easy intubation (if you can call it easy!!!)in flight or just airway management. Plus two seats at the patients side, 1 at chest and 1 at lower leg.
I dont think it gets better than that!
And there is still room for a second stretcher!
Plus you dont have to off load any medical equipment!!
All at 150kts.!!!
I dont think it gets better than that!
And there is still room for a second stretcher!
Plus you dont have to off load any medical equipment!!
All at 150kts.!!!
Refusing to intubate from an aside position is a bit short sighted of your paramaedics XEMS
If a paramedic can access a patients head, thats good enough given the circumstances!! I appreciate head on is the best, but not the only approach.
The 109 might offer that because it is full of HEMS equipment. Our 135 can do 2 patients with Oxy / 911 / Propac / Drugs bag / paramedic / pilot / police observer, AND all the standard police equipment on board and nothing being left behind pre launch!!
deh,deh,deh,deh,deh
If a paramedic can access a patients head, thats good enough given the circumstances!! I appreciate head on is the best, but not the only approach.
The 109 might offer that because it is full of HEMS equipment. Our 135 can do 2 patients with Oxy / 911 / Propac / Drugs bag / paramedic / pilot / police observer, AND all the standard police equipment on board and nothing being left behind pre launch!!
deh,deh,deh,deh,deh
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: USA
Posts: 50
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
My bad for not differentiating between 109a and 109e! I've only got to demo the E and not work the machine. I still say that the gold standard is medical attendant seated at the head. If you are working a multi-mission helicopter then you have many other things to consider, but for a pure EMS machine I think you will find little argument about seating arrangements. We had a seat in the BO-105 that crew could sit forward on the way to the call and then sit aft at the patients head during transport. I think it was made by Bucher, but it has been a while (note the name Xems!) In the 222 the seat could reverse. It all depends upon what the crew input is. Biggest mistake I have ever seen in EMS was having the aviation side of the house outfit the aircraft without any input from the medical side. Talk about some infighting! Anyway, I say as long as the crew is happy with the configuraiton, you will be just fine.