Air Ambulance rescue (Now incl post by the Paramedic - 9/11)
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: UK
Posts: 391
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Been away for a day and this thread has gone wild!
First off many thanks to Cheerypicker (apt name
) for his input, superbly put and very much appreciated. I think or would like to think we would all have the b*lls to do the same task, its easy to say can't be done. But obviously your crew assessed the situation and planned it out and did it right, your a credit to your service.
On the other point. Why oh why are you linning up to shoot down HH because if he had not posted his original post then this story would have died long ago, no what HH has done is bring a fresh view to this interesting topic which has been debated, hotly at times but DEBATED. Which lets face it we all have learned a lot from this the pro's and con's, which god forbid if we are faced with it it would help us to plan and work out the best possible rescue, just like Cheerypicker and his team... I am saddened by some of the comments thrown at HH I won't quote them but fun and banter is ok however some of the jibes by exhemsdog are a bit far... Come on boys stop the bickering and trying to push people in corners, it can be fun to learn
I will join in banter and even a bit of teasing. But I do worry about a few personel traits being shown here...lighten up lifes too short
First off many thanks to Cheerypicker (apt name
) for his input, superbly put and very much appreciated. I think or would like to think we would all have the b*lls to do the same task, its easy to say can't be done. But obviously your crew assessed the situation and planned it out and did it right, your a credit to your service.On the other point. Why oh why are you linning up to shoot down HH because if he had not posted his original post then this story would have died long ago, no what HH has done is bring a fresh view to this interesting topic which has been debated, hotly at times but DEBATED. Which lets face it we all have learned a lot from this the pro's and con's, which god forbid if we are faced with it it would help us to plan and work out the best possible rescue, just like Cheerypicker and his team... I am saddened by some of the comments thrown at HH I won't quote them but fun and banter is ok however some of the jibes by exhemsdog are a bit far... Come on boys stop the bickering and trying to push people in corners, it can be fun to learn
I will join in banter and even a bit of teasing. But I do worry about a few personel traits being shown here...lighten up lifes too short
Avoid imitations
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Wandering the FIR and cyberspace often at highly unsociable times
Posts: 14,576
Received 430 Likes
on
227 Posts
I repeat my earlier praise of the crew.
I have desisted from making this comment so far....however, looking at the majority view on this topic and the tone of the original post.........the senior police officers I have worked with in the past have always strongly made the point that the police force must reflect society. It worries me that some officers on the waterfront (pun intended) perhaps don't agree.....
I have desisted from making this comment so far....however, looking at the majority view on this topic and the tone of the original post.........the senior police officers I have worked with in the past have always strongly made the point that the police force must reflect society. It worries me that some officers on the waterfront (pun intended) perhaps don't agree.....
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: The Middle bit
Posts: 114
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
the senior police officers I have worked with in the past have always strongly made the point that the police force must reflect society. It worries me that some officers on the waterfront (pun intended) perhaps don't agree.....
I`m sorry, I dont understand. Perhaps you could expand on what your saying.
Avoid imitations
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Wandering the FIR and cyberspace often at highly unsociable times
Posts: 14,576
Received 430 Likes
on
227 Posts
My point exactly 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: London
Posts: 2,916
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
volrider
"Why oh why are you lining up to shoot down HH?"
FWIW, I think he's been shot down because of his attitude towards the crew who carried out the rescue - from the moment he started a thread about what they did with
. Even when someone associated with the unit posted the facts, it made no difference.
You said in a previous post you thought HH was only playing devils advocate. I didn't think he was but, if there was any doubt, he removed it yesterday.
Apart from doing so sarcastically in one post, HH hasn't expressed a word of praise for the crew and, when challenged to say whether he thought they took appropriate action, said probably no.
I agree HH has certainly provoked an interesting discussion, as has Helmet Fire, and I've learned a lot.
My opinion as a PPL isn't worth much but, FWIW, having read all the points made by experienced professional pilots, my views are
(1) that the crew were absolutely right to do what they did and I admire them for doing it,
and
(2) bearing in mind the requirements of CRM, I hope HH isn't on duty if ever I need rescuing in his area - just in case he votes 'No go' despite the pilot considering that a rescue could be carried out safely.
BTW, you say you're saddened by some of the comments thrown at HH. I agree, from the point of view of good discussion/friendly exchange of views etc (although I have no sympathy for HH myself), but you've thrown a few unpleasant comments at Helmet Fire which went beyond friendly banter with someone who holds a different point of view.
"Why oh why are you lining up to shoot down HH?"
FWIW, I think he's been shot down because of his attitude towards the crew who carried out the rescue - from the moment he started a thread about what they did with
. Even when someone associated with the unit posted the facts, it made no difference. You said in a previous post you thought HH was only playing devils advocate. I didn't think he was but, if there was any doubt, he removed it yesterday.
Apart from doing so sarcastically in one post, HH hasn't expressed a word of praise for the crew and, when challenged to say whether he thought they took appropriate action, said probably no.
I agree HH has certainly provoked an interesting discussion, as has Helmet Fire, and I've learned a lot.
My opinion as a PPL isn't worth much but, FWIW, having read all the points made by experienced professional pilots, my views are
(1) that the crew were absolutely right to do what they did and I admire them for doing it,
and
(2) bearing in mind the requirements of CRM, I hope HH isn't on duty if ever I need rescuing in his area - just in case he votes 'No go' despite the pilot considering that a rescue could be carried out safely.
BTW, you say you're saddened by some of the comments thrown at HH. I agree, from the point of view of good discussion/friendly exchange of views etc (although I have no sympathy for HH myself), but you've thrown a few unpleasant comments at Helmet Fire which went beyond friendly banter with someone who holds a different point of view.
Flying Lawyer: I'd like to take you up on several issues if I may:
You categorically and without reserve, fully endorse the view that the crew were absolutely right to do what they did.
[Let's forget about this particular rescue for a while:]
Each 'rescue' is different:
there's the police helo that 'dragged' a suicidal woman back to shore using the skids for support.
theres the police helo that landed on the club house roof during floods to pick up persons from the flooded building.
theres the 902 that dipped its skids into the lake to pick up a kid who was in difficulties.
We've done several - even ending up on 999 and police camera action because of them
Blah, blah, blah etc.
The aim of CRM is to negotiate with risk so as to minimise the negative consequences of carrying out said rescues. The above examples are the ones that got into the news, I can assure you that dozens of other 'rescues' were abandoned because the decision by one or all of the crew was based on CRM and the risk was assessed as too high.
It has to be this way for the reasons raised previously by other contributors, which leads me onto the meat of my observations:
Lets pick a ficticious rescue, say one where a helo hovers over a car in a river and a paramedic steps out to assist (
)
Lets aggravate the situation, now and watch as the paramedic slips on the wet roof and falls into the river. He falls awkwardly and knocks himself unconscious on the shallow river bed and gets washed downstream without a life jacket. He drowns as a consequence. The helo immediately departs as it serves no useful part thereafter. The man in the car climbs onto the roof and sits there for 2 hours until he is eventually assisted by the fire crew.
A week later the wife of said paramedic submits papers to the regional ambulance authority claiming manslaughter on the grounds of health and safety.
How would your colleagues defend that.
Scenario two:
The helo driver can only fly the approach, down wind. As he arrives at the bottom of the transition to the hover he is engulfed by recirculating spray which impairs his visual references causing him to sink and impact the water hard. The paramedic is thrown out of the cab and drowns.
The widow sues the ambulance authority on the grounds that the a/c was flown outside its flight envelope and on a mission not authorised by his employer. The aumbulance authority sues the pilot (or company that supplied him) arguing that he was derelict in his duty.
In his defence the pilot states that there were mitigating circumstances and they were trying to save life...
You get a phone call from the pilot
You are invited to defend him.............
What does he plead?
You categorically and without reserve, fully endorse the view that the crew were absolutely right to do what they did.
[Let's forget about this particular rescue for a while:]
Each 'rescue' is different:
there's the police helo that 'dragged' a suicidal woman back to shore using the skids for support.
theres the police helo that landed on the club house roof during floods to pick up persons from the flooded building.
theres the 902 that dipped its skids into the lake to pick up a kid who was in difficulties.
We've done several - even ending up on 999 and police camera action because of them
Blah, blah, blah etc.
The aim of CRM is to negotiate with risk so as to minimise the negative consequences of carrying out said rescues. The above examples are the ones that got into the news, I can assure you that dozens of other 'rescues' were abandoned because the decision by one or all of the crew was based on CRM and the risk was assessed as too high.
It has to be this way for the reasons raised previously by other contributors, which leads me onto the meat of my observations:
Lets pick a ficticious rescue, say one where a helo hovers over a car in a river and a paramedic steps out to assist (
)Lets aggravate the situation, now and watch as the paramedic slips on the wet roof and falls into the river. He falls awkwardly and knocks himself unconscious on the shallow river bed and gets washed downstream without a life jacket. He drowns as a consequence. The helo immediately departs as it serves no useful part thereafter. The man in the car climbs onto the roof and sits there for 2 hours until he is eventually assisted by the fire crew.
A week later the wife of said paramedic submits papers to the regional ambulance authority claiming manslaughter on the grounds of health and safety.
How would your colleagues defend that.
Scenario two:
The helo driver can only fly the approach, down wind. As he arrives at the bottom of the transition to the hover he is engulfed by recirculating spray which impairs his visual references causing him to sink and impact the water hard. The paramedic is thrown out of the cab and drowns.
The widow sues the ambulance authority on the grounds that the a/c was flown outside its flight envelope and on a mission not authorised by his employer. The aumbulance authority sues the pilot (or company that supplied him) arguing that he was derelict in his duty.
In his defence the pilot states that there were mitigating circumstances and they were trying to save life...
You get a phone call from the pilot
You are invited to defend him.............
What does he plead?
Avoid imitations
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Wandering the FIR and cyberspace often at highly unsociable times
Posts: 14,576
Received 430 Likes
on
227 Posts
First scenario: Presumably the paramedic wasn't forced to go out on the roof?
Second one: Pretty basic stuff that a downwind approach is likely to cause such a problem. In this case it could be argued that the pilot did not make a correct and reasoned assesment of the situation when it was within his training and experience to do so.
Sorry, I'm butting in, I know...
Second one: Pretty basic stuff that a downwind approach is likely to cause such a problem. In this case it could be argued that the pilot did not make a correct and reasoned assesment of the situation when it was within his training and experience to do so.
Sorry, I'm butting in, I know...
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: London
Posts: 2,916
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
TC
Given the facts (helpfully posted by Biffer) and having considered the opinions of the professional pilots in the discussion, yes I endorse the view that the crew were absolutely right to do what they did - and I admire them for doing it.
They made a risk assessment and all three members of the crew agreed on the rescue. It hasn't been mentioned, but it was agreed that one crew-member would be dropped off and wait on the bank while the other two carried out the rescue. (I understand he took photographs of the rescue.)
___________________________
Your scenarios:
It’s impossible to explain how each claim would be defended without knowing more facts/precisely what allegations of negligence and/or breach of statutory duty would be made. For the same reason, it's not possible to predict the result of the litigation. (It wouldn’t be manslaughter in either instance.)
However, the thrust of your post is that the health authority and/or the pilot’s employers and/or the pilot might be sued successfully if the rescue goes wrong, so let’s assume for the sake of argument that is correct.
Let’s also add that, whether or not it goes wrong, the pilot is still at risk of being prosecuted by the CAA and/or having his licence pulled by the CAA and/or losing his job.
So what’s my view then?
Assuming that (as happened in the B105 rescue) a proper risk assessment was made, CRM procedures were followed and each member of the crew agreed to attempt the rescue, then ..........
I would not condemn a pilot/crew who decided against attempting the rescue because they were worried about the consequences set out above.
But, I would admire and respect a pilot/crew who went ahead and attempted the rescue.
You've pointed out previously that if all goes well the crew are heroes and, if it doesn't, the crew (particularly the pilot) might be hung out to dry.
I agree that's a fair assessment.
But, provided risk assessment and CRM procedures have been properly followed, I still admire those who are prepared to take the risk of being prosecuted/sued in order to save or try to save a life.
Tudor
PS: I also have a hunch that you'd be one of the guys who'd put aside possible consequences to yourself and attempt a rescue provided you were satisfied (on a considered risk assessment) that it was safe to do so, and your crew was in favour.
Given the facts (helpfully posted by Biffer) and having considered the opinions of the professional pilots in the discussion, yes I endorse the view that the crew were absolutely right to do what they did - and I admire them for doing it.
They made a risk assessment and all three members of the crew agreed on the rescue. It hasn't been mentioned, but it was agreed that one crew-member would be dropped off and wait on the bank while the other two carried out the rescue. (I understand he took photographs of the rescue.)
___________________________
Your scenarios:
It’s impossible to explain how each claim would be defended without knowing more facts/precisely what allegations of negligence and/or breach of statutory duty would be made. For the same reason, it's not possible to predict the result of the litigation. (It wouldn’t be manslaughter in either instance.)
However, the thrust of your post is that the health authority and/or the pilot’s employers and/or the pilot might be sued successfully if the rescue goes wrong, so let’s assume for the sake of argument that is correct.
Let’s also add that, whether or not it goes wrong, the pilot is still at risk of being prosecuted by the CAA and/or having his licence pulled by the CAA and/or losing his job.
So what’s my view then?
Assuming that (as happened in the B105 rescue) a proper risk assessment was made, CRM procedures were followed and each member of the crew agreed to attempt the rescue, then ..........
I would not condemn a pilot/crew who decided against attempting the rescue because they were worried about the consequences set out above.
But, I would admire and respect a pilot/crew who went ahead and attempted the rescue.
You've pointed out previously that if all goes well the crew are heroes and, if it doesn't, the crew (particularly the pilot) might be hung out to dry.
I agree that's a fair assessment.
But, provided risk assessment and CRM procedures have been properly followed, I still admire those who are prepared to take the risk of being prosecuted/sued in order to save or try to save a life.
Tudor
PS: I also have a hunch that you'd be one of the guys who'd put aside possible consequences to yourself and attempt a rescue provided you were satisfied (on a considered risk assessment) that it was safe to do so, and your crew was in favour.
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: The Middle bit
Posts: 114
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Flying Lawyer
I hope the fence your sitting on is well constructed.
You must work for the prosecution and the de-fence.
Some people might say it would be your biggest nightmare if TC was the pilot and I was in the back seat
I hope the fence your sitting on is well constructed.
You must work for the prosecution and the de-fence.
Some people might say it would be your biggest nightmare if TC was the pilot and I was in the back seat
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: TI
Posts: 217
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
No need for a fence!!!!!!!
These guys did nothing outside the regulations or out of what is really ordinary and has and will continue to happen all over the world. If the cap fits it will be worn. I am surprised at the number of folk with the claimed expertise and experience are not aware of the following. I doubt that the CAA is really interested. These provisions are in effect in virtually every country. It provides for exactly this case. Hope this satisfies most of the issues in this thread - have a read.
UKCAA CAP 393
Towing, picking up and raising of persons and articles
55 (1) Subject to the provisions of this article, an aircraft in flight shall not, by means external
to the aircraft, tow any article, other than a glider, or pick up or raise any person,
animal or article, unless the certificate of airworthiness issued or rendered valid in
respect of that aircraft under the law of the country in which the aircraft is registered
includes an express provision that it may be used for that purpose.
(7) Nothing in this article shall:
(b) prohibit the picking up or raising of any person, animal or article in an emergency
or for the purpose of saving life;
New Zealand Civil Aviation Act
13A Duties of pilot-in-command and operator during emergencies
(1) Subject to subsections (2) and (6) of this section, in an emergency that arises in
flight, the pilot-in-command may breach the provisions of this Act or of regulations or
rules made under this Act.
(2) For the purposes of subsection (1) of this section, a breach of any prescribed
requirement is permitted only if the pilot-in-command is satisfied that—
(a) The emergency involves a danger to life or property; and
(b) The extent of the breach of the prescribed requirement goes only as far as is
necessary to deal with the emergency; and
(c) There is no other reasonable means of alleviating, avoiding, or assisting
with the emergency; and
(d) The degree of danger involved in complying with the prescribed
requirement is clearly greater than the degree of danger involved in deviating from
it.
(3) Subject to subsections (4) to (6) of this section, where an emergency (not being an
emergency that arises in flight) necessitates the urgent transportation of persons or medical
or other supplies for the protection of life or property, the pilot-in-command of the aircraft
or the operator of the aircraft may breach the provisions of this Act or of regulations or
rules made under this Act.
(4) For the purposes of subsection (3) of this section, a breach of any prescribed
requirement is permitted only if—
(a) The emergency involves a danger to life or property; and
(b) The extent of the breach of the prescribed requirement goes only as far as is
necessary to deal with the emergency; and
(c) There is no other reasonable means of alleviating, avoiding, or assisting
with the emergency; and
(d) The degree of danger involved in deviating from the prescribed requirement
is clearly less than the degree of risk in failing to attend to the emergency.
(5) Nothing in subsection (3) of this section permits—
(a) The operation of an aircraft that is not registered in New Zealand or
elsewhere; or
(b) The breach of any prescribed requirement as to the airworthiness of an
aircraft; or
(c) The operation of an aircraft by a person who is not lawfully entitled to
operate that aircraft.
(6) Where, in any emergency described in this section, a pilot-in-command or an
operator breaches this Act or regulations or rules made under this Act in accordance with
the provisions of this section, the pilot-in-command or the operator, as the case may be,
shall—
(a) Immediately notify the relevant air traffic control service of the action; and
(b) As soon as practicable, notify the Director of the action and the
circumstances that necessitated it, and, if requested by the Director, provide to the
Director a written report in respect of the action.
UKCAA CAP 393
Towing, picking up and raising of persons and articles
55 (1) Subject to the provisions of this article, an aircraft in flight shall not, by means external
to the aircraft, tow any article, other than a glider, or pick up or raise any person,
animal or article, unless the certificate of airworthiness issued or rendered valid in
respect of that aircraft under the law of the country in which the aircraft is registered
includes an express provision that it may be used for that purpose.
(7) Nothing in this article shall:
(b) prohibit the picking up or raising of any person, animal or article in an emergency
or for the purpose of saving life;
New Zealand Civil Aviation Act
13A Duties of pilot-in-command and operator during emergencies
(1) Subject to subsections (2) and (6) of this section, in an emergency that arises in
flight, the pilot-in-command may breach the provisions of this Act or of regulations or
rules made under this Act.
(2) For the purposes of subsection (1) of this section, a breach of any prescribed
requirement is permitted only if the pilot-in-command is satisfied that—
(a) The emergency involves a danger to life or property; and
(b) The extent of the breach of the prescribed requirement goes only as far as is
necessary to deal with the emergency; and
(c) There is no other reasonable means of alleviating, avoiding, or assisting
with the emergency; and
(d) The degree of danger involved in complying with the prescribed
requirement is clearly greater than the degree of danger involved in deviating from
it.
(3) Subject to subsections (4) to (6) of this section, where an emergency (not being an
emergency that arises in flight) necessitates the urgent transportation of persons or medical
or other supplies for the protection of life or property, the pilot-in-command of the aircraft
or the operator of the aircraft may breach the provisions of this Act or of regulations or
rules made under this Act.
(4) For the purposes of subsection (3) of this section, a breach of any prescribed
requirement is permitted only if—
(a) The emergency involves a danger to life or property; and
(b) The extent of the breach of the prescribed requirement goes only as far as is
necessary to deal with the emergency; and
(c) There is no other reasonable means of alleviating, avoiding, or assisting
with the emergency; and
(d) The degree of danger involved in deviating from the prescribed requirement
is clearly less than the degree of risk in failing to attend to the emergency.
(5) Nothing in subsection (3) of this section permits—
(a) The operation of an aircraft that is not registered in New Zealand or
elsewhere; or
(b) The breach of any prescribed requirement as to the airworthiness of an
aircraft; or
(c) The operation of an aircraft by a person who is not lawfully entitled to
operate that aircraft.
(6) Where, in any emergency described in this section, a pilot-in-command or an
operator breaches this Act or regulations or rules made under this Act in accordance with
the provisions of this section, the pilot-in-command or the operator, as the case may be,
shall—
(a) Immediately notify the relevant air traffic control service of the action; and
(b) As soon as practicable, notify the Director of the action and the
circumstances that necessitated it, and, if requested by the Director, provide to the
Director a written report in respect of the action.
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: London
Posts: 2,916
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
huntnhound
Me, sit on the fence? That would be a first.
I've made my views clear in each of my posts. There's only one contributor to this discussion who has constantly sniped at the B105 crew but had to be pressed to say what he actually thought.
I would admire and respect a crew which elected to carry out the rescue in TC's scenarios provided that, as in the B105 rescue, it was done after a proper risk assessment and in accordance with CRM procedures.
I would understand crews who decided against doing so because they were worried about possible legal repercussions against them if it went wrong. Their lives, their licences; it's not for me to condemn them.
Which part of that don't you understand?
I accepted that crews who carry out rescues could find themselves in litigation if the rescue goes wrong - and possibly on the wrong side of the CAA even if it doesn't. However, what I am not prepared to do is give definitive legal answers to scenarios/questions (or predict the outcome of any litigation) when I do not have sufficient information. It would be irresponsible of me to do so.
If you can't understand that and choose to regard it as sitting on the fence, that's up to you.
Yes, I do work for the prosecution and the defence in various cases, but with one exception. To date, I've never prosecuted a pilot.
"Some people might say it would be your biggest nightmare if TC was the pilot and I was in the back seat "
They might, but they'd be wrong.
I haven't met either of you but, on the basis of posts in Rotorheads, I think you and TC are very different.
(Edit)
As I said in my post on the 26th October, and told the pilot directly, I'd be happy to defend him free of charge if there were any proceedings against him.
From what I've since heard on the grapevine (unconfirmed), that won't be necessary.
Me, sit on the fence? That would be a first.
I've made my views clear in each of my posts. There's only one contributor to this discussion who has constantly sniped at the B105 crew but had to be pressed to say what he actually thought.
I would admire and respect a crew which elected to carry out the rescue in TC's scenarios provided that, as in the B105 rescue, it was done after a proper risk assessment and in accordance with CRM procedures.
I would understand crews who decided against doing so because they were worried about possible legal repercussions against them if it went wrong. Their lives, their licences; it's not for me to condemn them.
Which part of that don't you understand?
I accepted that crews who carry out rescues could find themselves in litigation if the rescue goes wrong - and possibly on the wrong side of the CAA even if it doesn't. However, what I am not prepared to do is give definitive legal answers to scenarios/questions (or predict the outcome of any litigation) when I do not have sufficient information. It would be irresponsible of me to do so.
If you can't understand that and choose to regard it as sitting on the fence, that's up to you.
Yes, I do work for the prosecution and the defence in various cases, but with one exception. To date, I've never prosecuted a pilot.
"Some people might say it would be your biggest nightmare if TC was the pilot and I was in the back seat
" They might, but they'd be wrong.
I haven't met either of you but, on the basis of posts in Rotorheads, I think you and TC are very different.
(Edit)
As I said in my post on the 26th October, and told the pilot directly, I'd be happy to defend him free of charge if there were any proceedings against him.
From what I've since heard on the grapevine (unconfirmed), that won't be necessary.
Last edited by Flying Lawyer; 11th Nov 2004 at 09:23.
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: The Middle bit
Posts: 114
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
FL,
I dont accept I have "Constantly sniped". I have, however expressed a view which differs to the mass populas of this stimulating forum.
Some time ago I attended a National meeting which was shortly after one of the incidents TC mentioned, where a Police unit had conducted a sea rescue. I agreed whole heartedly that it was appropriate, and excellent work. However the Home office advisor made it abundantly clear that the Police helicopter was not a search and rescue unit, and that repeat incidents were likely to attract the attention of the CAA. He further expressed the train of thought that should there be an untoward incident, there would be repercussions for every unit in the country, and made it quite clear that AOC`s would be suspended.
I, along with the entire group, argued that we had a duty to protect life (and property), and I would fulfill that duty entirely. Examples of people being trapped on top of a burning block of flats were debated, as well as the water rescue scenarios.
Each incident is entirely different, and yes, the crew of the moment made the right decision. But this industry, and my service cannot go headlong into search and rescue. we cannot.....
use this as a run of the mill excuse or indeed expect it to be a permanent line of defence in the courts can we?
Protection of life and property does not just extend to the rescued...but the rescuers and all around, and if , FL, you were prosecuting me, you would be the first person to throw that in my face.
HH
I dont accept I have "Constantly sniped". I have, however expressed a view which differs to the mass populas of this stimulating forum.
Some time ago I attended a National meeting which was shortly after one of the incidents TC mentioned, where a Police unit had conducted a sea rescue. I agreed whole heartedly that it was appropriate, and excellent work. However the Home office advisor made it abundantly clear that the Police helicopter was not a search and rescue unit, and that repeat incidents were likely to attract the attention of the CAA. He further expressed the train of thought that should there be an untoward incident, there would be repercussions for every unit in the country, and made it quite clear that AOC`s would be suspended.
I, along with the entire group, argued that we had a duty to protect life (and property), and I would fulfill that duty entirely. Examples of people being trapped on top of a burning block of flats were debated, as well as the water rescue scenarios.
Each incident is entirely different, and yes, the crew of the moment made the right decision. But this industry, and my service cannot go headlong into search and rescue. we cannot.....
b) prohibit the picking up or raising of any person, animal or article in an emergency
Protection of life and property does not just extend to the rescued...but the rescuers and all around, and if , FL, you were prosecuting me, you would be the first person to throw that in my face.
HH
Last edited by huntnhound; 11th Nov 2004 at 14:45.
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: UK
Posts: 391
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
HH I agree wholeheartedly FL seems to follow on the usual Legal Beagle trick of not letting the truth get in the way of Justice, its all well and good him offering his services for free...which would be a first for this pocket emptying profession But the real facts are that unless the law is changed..the CAA are waiting in the wings to hang out some poor s*d to dry who gets it wrong, great while it works but as you have said before, "what if"
I think this has been a healthy debate where we all have learned. The crew as you and others have said are to be congratulated on the actions and outcome.
ps has the CAA said anything about this superb job???? They seem very quiet
But the real facts are that unless the law is changed..the CAA are waiting in the wings to hang out some poor s*d to dry who gets it wrong, great while it works but as you have said before, "what if" I think this has been a healthy debate where we all have learned. The crew as you and others have said are to be congratulated on the actions and outcome.
ps has the CAA said anything about this superb job???? They seem very quiet
Join Date: May 2000
Location: uk
Posts: 37
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
HH I didn't realise that the Home Office Aviation Adviser had so much influence over the Chief Constables and their ASUs. I have heard that he is a majority of one, is, in effect, a consultant since it is a contracted appointment and his only real experience was as a test pilot. What has he done/does he do that the CAA hasn' t taken care of already? Is it time someone else who doesn't need an umbrella replaced him?
Earpiece
"Believe nothing you hear and half of what you see - you will be nearer the truth"
Earpiece
"Believe nothing you hear and half of what you see - you will be nearer the truth"
A most excellent thread, the credit has to go to HH for stimulating those parts we didn't realise we had! Thank you HH.
If anyone has walked away from this non the wiser, then more fool them - some sensitive old bones were rattled and more than just the pilot fraternity were involved.
Pprune certainly proved its worth on this ocassion.
Earpiece : The HO in conjunction with ACPO and the CAA invented the POM. Invented police air support....gave us both a job. Don't knock it.
Mention the big HO to any police officer (especially the senior ones) and they started squirming. It's too close to home for them!
Ignore the "berated" one at your peril.....................
If anyone has walked away from this non the wiser, then more fool them - some sensitive old bones were rattled and more than just the pilot fraternity were involved.
Pprune certainly proved its worth on this ocassion.
Earpiece : The HO in conjunction with ACPO and the CAA invented the POM. Invented police air support....gave us both a job. Don't knock it.
Mention the big HO to any police officer (especially the senior ones) and they started squirming. It's too close to home for them!
Ignore the "berated" one at your peril.....................
We seem to have covered the whole range of people's opinions on this incident, the main concern being that it was carried out in a helicopter that could not sustain the hover in the event of an engine failure.
So, what would your opinions be if the aircraft in question WAS capable of remaining in the hover after the loss of one engine?
So, what would your opinions be if the aircraft in question WAS capable of remaining in the hover after the loss of one engine?
Join Date: Sep 2001
Location: In the Haven of Peace
Age: 79
Posts: 600
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Earpiece,
How little you know when you say:
. The Home Office Aviation Adviser was indeed a military test pilot originally. He also flew on the North Sea, was the test pilot who certified and brought into service the Bristow SAR S61 which is what they now use on Coastguard contracts, did long-line work in Papua New Guinea, was test pilot with McAlpine Helicopters, flew one of the first ENG helicopters in UK, started up and flew on a number of police and air ambulance contracts (including Liverpool Police, Manchester Police and Surrey Police), back in the days before there was such a thing as a POM. He has been actively involved in aviation for over 40 years, most of it as a civilian, only some of it as a test pilot and has been involved with police aviation for over 15 years.
How little you know when you say:
his only real experience was as a test pilot
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: London
Posts: 2,916
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
HH
I appreciate you’ve “expressed a view which differs to the mass populas of this stimulating forum”. (Only one contributor doesn’t seems to realise that.) You now say 'the crew of the moment made the right decision'. If you mean the Teesside crew, you’ve changed your view and (FWIW) I agree.
I also agree with much of what you’ve said in your recent post. As I said previously, I have enormous sympathy for crews when the law appears to conflict with what they believe would be the ‘right’ thing to do in the circumstances.
”if, FL, you were prosecuting me, you would be the first person to throw that in my face.”
I don’t prosecute aviation cases but that aside, I don’t know why you think you’d be prosecuted. You're not a pilot and observers are legally passengers. CRM means an observer/passenger can stop a pilot from doing something, but not make a pilot do anything he considers too risky or unlawful. If something goes wrong, then depending upon the circumstances, the commander of the aircraft might be prosecuted - but not a passenger.
volrider
You’re not alone in your dislike of lawyers; we're not a popular group - although I could name some pilots who have good reason to be grateful to lawyers, even to me.
However, it is difficult to have a useful exchange of views if you resort to making offensive comments about lawyers when I express an opinion. Thankfully, Jetblast-style lawyer-bashing happens very rarely in this forum. I've learned an enormous amount from professionals here over the years and, although I'm only a PPL, I do know just a little about aviation law and hope I've been able to contribute something occasionally.
If you disagree with something I say, why not just say what it is, and why?
For your information: No, it isn’t a ‘first’ for me to offer my services free to pilots. I regularly give legal advice to pilots free of charge which, in some instances, has prevented an investigation from turning into a prosecution. I have also defended pilots in court without charging fees (or for a nominal fee) because of their financial circumstances and/or because I think they've been wrongly prosecuted.
”Has the CAA said anything about this superb job???? They seem very quiet”
The unit's Flight Ops Inspector has investigated the circumstances of the rescue and, as I understand it, that is the end of that matter. I doubt if the CAA will issue a public statement. Unless there's a prosecution, such things are between the CAA and the pilot.
Tudor Owen
I appreciate you’ve “expressed a view which differs to the mass populas of this stimulating forum”. (Only one contributor doesn’t seems to realise that.) You now say 'the crew of the moment made the right decision'. If you mean the Teesside crew, you’ve changed your view and (FWIW) I agree.
I also agree with much of what you’ve said in your recent post. As I said previously, I have enormous sympathy for crews when the law appears to conflict with what they believe would be the ‘right’ thing to do in the circumstances.
”if, FL, you were prosecuting me, you would be the first person to throw that in my face.”
I don’t prosecute aviation cases but that aside, I don’t know why you think you’d be prosecuted. You're not a pilot and observers are legally passengers. CRM means an observer/passenger can stop a pilot from doing something, but not make a pilot do anything he considers too risky or unlawful. If something goes wrong, then depending upon the circumstances, the commander of the aircraft might be prosecuted - but not a passenger.
volrider
You’re not alone in your dislike of lawyers; we're not a popular group - although I could name some pilots who have good reason to be grateful to lawyers, even to me.
However, it is difficult to have a useful exchange of views if you resort to making offensive comments about lawyers when I express an opinion. Thankfully, Jetblast-style lawyer-bashing happens very rarely in this forum. I've learned an enormous amount from professionals here over the years and, although I'm only a PPL, I do know just a little about aviation law and hope I've been able to contribute something occasionally.
If you disagree with something I say, why not just say what it is, and why?
For your information: No, it isn’t a ‘first’ for me to offer my services free to pilots. I regularly give legal advice to pilots free of charge which, in some instances, has prevented an investigation from turning into a prosecution. I have also defended pilots in court without charging fees (or for a nominal fee) because of their financial circumstances and/or because I think they've been wrongly prosecuted.
”Has the CAA said anything about this superb job???? They seem very quiet”
The unit's Flight Ops Inspector has investigated the circumstances of the rescue and, as I understand it, that is the end of that matter. I doubt if the CAA will issue a public statement. Unless there's a prosecution, such things are between the CAA and the pilot.
Tudor Owen