HEMS crash.
Joined: Sep 2002
Posts: 83
Likes: 0
From: Down a Jitty
I think i would rather NVG became a night requirement, that may change though if ADS-B and WAAS delivers as promised. The infrastructure right now only really suits the airlines. The aircraft in question i think was an IFR ship, should we be more focused on NVG, it doesn't help in inadvertant IMC but wouldn't it make a bigger safety improvement for the buck.
I read that AM said NVG are in short supply because of the war and would have used them if they were readily available.
I read that AM said NVG are in short supply because of the war and would have used them if they were readily available.
Joined: Sep 2007
Posts: 186
Likes: 0
From: US
I heard NVGs were in short supply as well. ADS-B and WAAS (with LNAV/VNAV and LPV DA, etc.) are excellent as well (I'm very familiar with both), plus, airborne satellite communication to a reliable dispatch center.
The IFR option should be standard. Gives pilots a real chance excepting lines of T-storms and icing. As to airlines dominating the ATC system, that is true, but it is changing slowly with the advent of GPS low level routes; some in metropolitan areas, others in more remote regions.
When one uses the callsign LifeGuard here in the states the airlines get NO priority. Decades ago I came from the end of Long Island under LifeGuard status straight to 34th St. heliport in Manhattan (patient destined for the hospital across the street). ATC made holes all the way to include arrivals at JFK and departures from LaGuardia - needless to say this was a very serious patient. ATC made no bones about doing it.
The IFR option should be standard. Gives pilots a real chance excepting lines of T-storms and icing. As to airlines dominating the ATC system, that is true, but it is changing slowly with the advent of GPS low level routes; some in metropolitan areas, others in more remote regions.
When one uses the callsign LifeGuard here in the states the airlines get NO priority. Decades ago I came from the end of Long Island under LifeGuard status straight to 34th St. heliport in Manhattan (patient destined for the hospital across the street). ATC made holes all the way to include arrivals at JFK and departures from LaGuardia - needless to say this was a very serious patient. ATC made no bones about doing it.
Joined: Oct 2003
Posts: 1,030
Likes: 0
From: Over here
I would also like NVGs, but they are in short supply. I doubt I'll see them before I retire. I also don't believe SPIFR will be required in the US in the foreseeable future. Too many politicians have been paid off, and will be in the future, although I doubt it's even necessary. This isn't a priority of any influential politician, there are too many other things biting them in the butt, and it would take Congressional action to bring it on. Ain't gonna happen any time soon.
Joined: Oct 2007
Posts: 85
Likes: 0
From: europe
To maintain safe currency in the SPIFR environment in a machine like the ec135 what are the requirements imposed by HEMS companies. Im thinking about how many approaches (precisison/non precision, & transits etc)??
Thread Starter
Joined: Sep 2007
Posts: 336
Likes: 0
From: USA
Beans:
Most companies play it by the book:i.e. the FARs. This typically involves a full IFR check ride every six months and to maintain currency, the pilots are required to do at least six approaches every six months ,track a VOR, etc.
All this keeps them current but does it keep them proficient? IMHO, helicopter pilots are very comfortable at 1000 agl. And since the use of the IFR system(aircraft equipment and ATC) is sporadic, there is a tendency to avoid IFR as far as possible.It is all about the comfort level of the pilot flying IFR.Our airline counterparts get into that mode right from day one. That is a cultural difference that will take time to eliminate. Meanwhile, a quick easy fix would be to mandate NVGs and TAWS for all VFR operations and if the helicopter is IFR capable then it should be mandated to fly IFR all the time. Which means, that if an IFR program is requested for a patient transfer, they should file and fly IFR irrespective of the weather.This will not eliminate crashes(after all ,the scene work is still going to be mainly VFR for the forseeable future) but it will go a long way in reducing the number of accidents which have that "continued VFR into IMC" sting in the tail.
Alt3.
Most companies play it by the book:i.e. the FARs. This typically involves a full IFR check ride every six months and to maintain currency, the pilots are required to do at least six approaches every six months ,track a VOR, etc.
All this keeps them current but does it keep them proficient? IMHO, helicopter pilots are very comfortable at 1000 agl. And since the use of the IFR system(aircraft equipment and ATC) is sporadic, there is a tendency to avoid IFR as far as possible.It is all about the comfort level of the pilot flying IFR.Our airline counterparts get into that mode right from day one. That is a cultural difference that will take time to eliminate. Meanwhile, a quick easy fix would be to mandate NVGs and TAWS for all VFR operations and if the helicopter is IFR capable then it should be mandated to fly IFR all the time. Which means, that if an IFR program is requested for a patient transfer, they should file and fly IFR irrespective of the weather.This will not eliminate crashes(after all ,the scene work is still going to be mainly VFR for the forseeable future) but it will go a long way in reducing the number of accidents which have that "continued VFR into IMC" sting in the tail.
Alt3.
Joined: Sep 2007
Posts: 186
Likes: 0
From: US
alouette3
Good stuff.
I agree with you in respect to TAWS, and perhaps NVG. I also agree in principle reference full time IFR but in practice mandating HEMS IFR everywhere will not be taken lightly by the medical industry, or relatives of patients, considering the delay to patient care that provides.
As to SPIFR HEMS I look more to monthly mandatory simulated or actual IMC/IFR time with a training captain, desktop simulators or greater, etc. etc.
No doubt being a SPIFR EMS helicopter pilot is very serious business and more difficult than lining up with another fixed wing airline crewmember on 27L for yet again, another IFR sector.
There are macro issues concerning the interplay between management and pilots, medical crewmembers and pilots, etc. etc. but the bottom line is that if the pilot does not have the training and equipment to deal with what weather he/she gets dealt out in the flying environment the results can be dire.
IMHO the recent decrease in HEMS accidents has less to do with operational control and perceived dispatch interplay than it does to the vast increase in VFR minimums operators have adopted/been forced to adopt.
WIII
Good stuff.
I agree with you in respect to TAWS, and perhaps NVG. I also agree in principle reference full time IFR but in practice mandating HEMS IFR everywhere will not be taken lightly by the medical industry, or relatives of patients, considering the delay to patient care that provides.
As to SPIFR HEMS I look more to monthly mandatory simulated or actual IMC/IFR time with a training captain, desktop simulators or greater, etc. etc.
No doubt being a SPIFR EMS helicopter pilot is very serious business and more difficult than lining up with another fixed wing airline crewmember on 27L for yet again, another IFR sector.
There are macro issues concerning the interplay between management and pilots, medical crewmembers and pilots, etc. etc. but the bottom line is that if the pilot does not have the training and equipment to deal with what weather he/she gets dealt out in the flying environment the results can be dire.
IMHO the recent decrease in HEMS accidents has less to do with operational control and perceived dispatch interplay than it does to the vast increase in VFR minimums operators have adopted/been forced to adopt.
WIII
Joined: May 2002
Aviation Qualifications: ATP+Mil
Posts: 18,633
Likes: 1,072
From: Downeast
Alouette sums up the situation very well. If VFR night weather minimums were set to a safe level and NVG's were introduced into the system then we would see far fewer accidents at night. Perhaps WIII's statement confirms part of that when he talks of operators having to adopt higher weather minimums since the FAA changes have been implemented.
Joined: Sep 2007
Posts: 186
Likes: 0
From: US
SASless
I agree.
Seems things are pointing towards the full package of SPIFR, TAWS, NVG, etc. as the answer; eventually.
Only fly in the ointment is the statistical fact single engine helicopters are seen to be no more dangerous than twins (although it appears that is a very general and broad crunch) therefore major operators are reequipping that way (particulary with Long Rangers and B2 A-Stars) - point being, who wants to fly a HEMS Single Engine SPIFR? I know early D-Model A-Stars had SAS and autopilot available but not sure what the possibilities are for that machine these days, or the extent to which it would impact available load.
Time will tell!
WIII
I agree.
Seems things are pointing towards the full package of SPIFR, TAWS, NVG, etc. as the answer; eventually.
Only fly in the ointment is the statistical fact single engine helicopters are seen to be no more dangerous than twins (although it appears that is a very general and broad crunch) therefore major operators are reequipping that way (particulary with Long Rangers and B2 A-Stars) - point being, who wants to fly a HEMS Single Engine SPIFR? I know early D-Model A-Stars had SAS and autopilot available but not sure what the possibilities are for that machine these days, or the extent to which it would impact available load.
Time will tell!
WIII
Joined: May 2002
Aviation Qualifications: ATP+Mil
Posts: 18,633
Likes: 1,072
From: Downeast
The one vice more engine debate re IFR/IMC does get confusing. Is it the redundancy the second engine (or more) brings by having a second generator or the ability to continue flight following a single engine failure which by definition single engine aircraft cannot do?
I am of the mindset the twin engine, fully IFR kitted aircraft, combined with training and experience both accumulated and recent to effectively continue flight in IMC conditions (whether intentional or inadvertent) is the answer.
Without the training and experience all of the fancy gadgets in the world will not prevent bad things from happening. The flip side of that coin is without sufficient equipment on the aircraft....no amount of experience and training will overcome that and then too bad things happen.
Add in the collateral issues of weather reporting, landing aids, communications, operation safety culture and all the rest have to be in place as well.
Therein lies the challenge to the HEMS industry....how to accomplish all that and do so in such a fashion as to remain economically viable.
Perhaps there is a compromise between the UK/EU models and the US models that ought to be considered. The US view of providing 24/7 service of equal capability might need modifying.
At least under the US FAA system there is the flexibility to be able to accomplish that as compared to the very highly restrictive UK/EU/JAR/EASA system.
I for one would much rather be in the USA when I have my life threatening experience and need emergency transport to a Trauma Center. If that need is at night......there is no comparison between the US system and the UK system that gives one comfort about the availibility of HEMS service at night if you are not in the USA.
I am of the mindset the twin engine, fully IFR kitted aircraft, combined with training and experience both accumulated and recent to effectively continue flight in IMC conditions (whether intentional or inadvertent) is the answer.
Without the training and experience all of the fancy gadgets in the world will not prevent bad things from happening. The flip side of that coin is without sufficient equipment on the aircraft....no amount of experience and training will overcome that and then too bad things happen.
Add in the collateral issues of weather reporting, landing aids, communications, operation safety culture and all the rest have to be in place as well.
Therein lies the challenge to the HEMS industry....how to accomplish all that and do so in such a fashion as to remain economically viable.
Perhaps there is a compromise between the UK/EU models and the US models that ought to be considered. The US view of providing 24/7 service of equal capability might need modifying.
At least under the US FAA system there is the flexibility to be able to accomplish that as compared to the very highly restrictive UK/EU/JAR/EASA system.
I for one would much rather be in the USA when I have my life threatening experience and need emergency transport to a Trauma Center. If that need is at night......there is no comparison between the US system and the UK system that gives one comfort about the availibility of HEMS service at night if you are not in the USA.
Joined: Sep 2007
Posts: 186
Likes: 0
From: US
Certainly the devil is in the collateral details which historically operators have been reluctant to delve in to.
I want nothing to do with SE SPIFR.
If one doesn't know how to use all the gadgets, and when to use them, etc. the best of equipment becomes a liability rather than an enhancement. Kinda like flying with a really dim copilot - negative synergy.
I'm not familiar with the UK HEMS system/s but worked eight years over there so know the lingo. From what I see US adoption of the JARS is a painfully slow thing, but we're getting there. I am reasonably fond of the UK way of doing things.
I want nothing to do with SE SPIFR.
If one doesn't know how to use all the gadgets, and when to use them, etc. the best of equipment becomes a liability rather than an enhancement. Kinda like flying with a really dim copilot - negative synergy.
I'm not familiar with the UK HEMS system/s but worked eight years over there so know the lingo. From what I see US adoption of the JARS is a painfully slow thing, but we're getting there. I am reasonably fond of the UK way of doing things.
Joined: Nov 2006
Posts: 103
Likes: 0
From: USA
Ifr + Nvg
Hello folks,
If you really looking for safety in HEMS operation, all should have both of them. NVG without IFR knowledge and skills might cause problems also. Think, if you are in the middle of somewhere and you are loose your NVG expectedly. That's happen in real life occasionally. You might have inadvertment phenomenom and to fix this situation, you need to have some way out.
For my opinion; ME SP(or MP)IFR with NVG. No money, no funny.
Hostile
If you really looking for safety in HEMS operation, all should have both of them. NVG without IFR knowledge and skills might cause problems also. Think, if you are in the middle of somewhere and you are loose your NVG expectedly. That's happen in real life occasionally. You might have inadvertment phenomenom and to fix this situation, you need to have some way out.
For my opinion; ME SP(or MP)IFR with NVG. No money, no funny.
Hostile
Joined: Dec 2001
Posts: 1,835
Likes: 3
From: Philadelphia PA
If we look at the majority of HEMS accidents, we see most of them happen at night in less than ideal weather conditions, and when returning from dropping off a patient.
People run into things they can't see in time to avoid.
Fitting a TAWS system with accuracy suitable for helicopter operations would help prevent that (it's been done in tour helicopters in Hawaii, and they're definitely VFR)
Making people fly dedicated routes with specific altitudes at night would also go a long way to reducing accidents.
And didn't the FAA just change the rules about what visibility requirements are at night??? What happened in this accident vis-a-vis those new rules?
People run into things they can't see in time to avoid.
Fitting a TAWS system with accuracy suitable for helicopter operations would help prevent that (it's been done in tour helicopters in Hawaii, and they're definitely VFR)
Making people fly dedicated routes with specific altitudes at night would also go a long way to reducing accidents.
And didn't the FAA just change the rules about what visibility requirements are at night??? What happened in this accident vis-a-vis those new rules?
Joined: May 2002
Aviation Qualifications: ATP+Mil
Posts: 18,633
Likes: 1,072
From: Downeast
Gom,
The "rules and regs" have not changed per se....but attention to them has. Also an OpSpec change has the effect of a rule change in that it sets forth specifications the operator must adhere to in its conduct of air operations.
The rule change being referred to is actually the increased oversight the FAA has mandated be done to ensure operators fully comply with existing FAR's and Op Spec's.
The "rules and regs" have not changed per se....but attention to them has. Also an OpSpec change has the effect of a rule change in that it sets forth specifications the operator must adhere to in its conduct of air operations.
The rule change being referred to is actually the increased oversight the FAA has mandated be done to ensure operators fully comply with existing FAR's and Op Spec's.
Joined: Sep 2007
Posts: 186
Likes: 0
From: US
SASless et al
Essentially correct. It seems many operators are now using 800/2 & 1000/3 for day local and cross country, and higher than that at night for VFR HEMS.
The minimums pretty much beg IFR with airborne approach funtion to point in space and ADS-B to ATC, etc. It'll come in due time. The problem I see is this influx of single engine helicopters to HEMS here in the US. I can't see the industry going IFR with them.
To my mind there is not a lot of good macro thinking going on - mostly competitive thinking betwixt operators to see who can be cheaper than the other.
WIII
Essentially correct. It seems many operators are now using 800/2 & 1000/3 for day local and cross country, and higher than that at night for VFR HEMS.
The minimums pretty much beg IFR with airborne approach funtion to point in space and ADS-B to ATC, etc. It'll come in due time. The problem I see is this influx of single engine helicopters to HEMS here in the US. I can't see the industry going IFR with them.
To my mind there is not a lot of good macro thinking going on - mostly competitive thinking betwixt operators to see who can be cheaper than the other.
WIII
"Just a pilot"
Joined: May 2001
Posts: 633
Likes: 8
From: Jefferson GA USA
The stuff that kills people at night hasn't changed since I started flying and I suspect, since people started flying: Stupid decisions, the consequences of which are amplified by not being able to see to avoid and adapt as the flight progresses. The same accidents at the same comparison rate, were occurring when I flew in Vietnam.
The military has made huge progress in overcoming the issues, some of their proven solutions are adaptable to the civilian world. There are considerable differences to be considered in adopting those to the civilian world.
First, NVGs. The major difference between day and night operations is the ability to "see and avoid", weather, mountains, wires, antennae, whatever- Day ops can see "it", night ops can't, and "it" kills.
I would love to have a second engine, half my flying life has been in multis. They're not the answer, safety-wise, without huge SOP changes, training and pay cost increases. Maintaining and managing the systems also introduces issues, and those issues, if not successfully dealt with make multis more dangerous than singles.
I would love to have SPIFR capability. That's just me, because there's NO business rationale to make it cost effective in my area. And, NO!, we don't launch with an IFR recovery as a potential resolution to IMC. In my area it makes no patient care/business sense whatsoever. We land when the WX goes below comfortable VFR. Consider- I understand that this accident was an SPIFR aircraft, Air Method's last fatal was an SPIFR, and most of the CJ crashes just before their sale were SPIFR...
Some of the other military solutions that aren't really adaptable-
Two pilot crews. This is the single most effective safety enhancement possible. Almost none of the US fleet would support it, especially with the "health-care crisis" (read as: somebody else should pay for it) and the resulting plunge to the bottom as costs are cut, so-called "equality of care" is ensured, and responsibility is broadly distributed to everyone else, which means, of course- nobody is actually responsible. But, I digress...
"Go pills" and "no go pills". The military can use them, we can't. That's fine, there is a huge difference in our mission parameters.
Which leads, finally, my one-note song: scheduling for nights. Pretend that lack of sleep, circadian disruption, and general fatigue are adequately addressed by the "10 hour of uninterrupted rest" regulation and you get what we have- pilots operating at the minimum state of alertness making the most challenging decisions of the job- Night ops.
The military has made huge progress in overcoming the issues, some of their proven solutions are adaptable to the civilian world. There are considerable differences to be considered in adopting those to the civilian world.
First, NVGs. The major difference between day and night operations is the ability to "see and avoid", weather, mountains, wires, antennae, whatever- Day ops can see "it", night ops can't, and "it" kills.
I would love to have a second engine, half my flying life has been in multis. They're not the answer, safety-wise, without huge SOP changes, training and pay cost increases. Maintaining and managing the systems also introduces issues, and those issues, if not successfully dealt with make multis more dangerous than singles.
I would love to have SPIFR capability. That's just me, because there's NO business rationale to make it cost effective in my area. And, NO!, we don't launch with an IFR recovery as a potential resolution to IMC. In my area it makes no patient care/business sense whatsoever. We land when the WX goes below comfortable VFR. Consider- I understand that this accident was an SPIFR aircraft, Air Method's last fatal was an SPIFR, and most of the CJ crashes just before their sale were SPIFR...
Some of the other military solutions that aren't really adaptable-
Two pilot crews. This is the single most effective safety enhancement possible. Almost none of the US fleet would support it, especially with the "health-care crisis" (read as: somebody else should pay for it) and the resulting plunge to the bottom as costs are cut, so-called "equality of care" is ensured, and responsibility is broadly distributed to everyone else, which means, of course- nobody is actually responsible. But, I digress...
"Go pills" and "no go pills". The military can use them, we can't. That's fine, there is a huge difference in our mission parameters.
Which leads, finally, my one-note song: scheduling for nights. Pretend that lack of sleep, circadian disruption, and general fatigue are adequately addressed by the "10 hour of uninterrupted rest" regulation and you get what we have- pilots operating at the minimum state of alertness making the most challenging decisions of the job- Night ops.
Thread Starter
Joined: Sep 2007
Posts: 336
Likes: 0
From: USA
Devil49:
Great post.
The mystery of SPIFR capable helicopters crashing in IFR conditions would have to be solved by the human factors folks.There is an obvious gap that needs to be plugged there and needs involvement of the regulators ,operators and the pilots.
As to the night scheduling issue:could'nt agree with you more. The Part 121 ands 135 regs of the FAA are probably the most liberal in the world. Consider this: in a 90 day period a part 135 opearator can schedule me for 77 days of work with 8 hours of flying everyday and still be legal. Nobody does it ,but, they can. Most other countries have duty time regulations that are a lot more pilot friendly. Some have clauses about extra rest periods for flights originating or terminating after midnight.We need to look at that closely.
There are EMS bases around the US where it is not unusual for pilots to work 7 straight nights in a row and fly every night of the shift. I don't buy the fact that on the last night, at O dark thirty ,the pilot is not tired.While most companies talk the talk about take -yourself-off-the-shift-if-you-are-tired stuff, try doing that a couple of times and see what happens.The first guys to give you grief will be your fellow pilots.
The "tombstone imperative " forced the FAA to regulate duty time for HEMS operators. Maybe they need to look at the issue once again. Especially since, as Shawn rightly pointed out, most accidents happen at night.
Thoughts?
Alt3.
Great post.
The mystery of SPIFR capable helicopters crashing in IFR conditions would have to be solved by the human factors folks.There is an obvious gap that needs to be plugged there and needs involvement of the regulators ,operators and the pilots.
As to the night scheduling issue:could'nt agree with you more. The Part 121 ands 135 regs of the FAA are probably the most liberal in the world. Consider this: in a 90 day period a part 135 opearator can schedule me for 77 days of work with 8 hours of flying everyday and still be legal. Nobody does it ,but, they can. Most other countries have duty time regulations that are a lot more pilot friendly. Some have clauses about extra rest periods for flights originating or terminating after midnight.We need to look at that closely.
There are EMS bases around the US where it is not unusual for pilots to work 7 straight nights in a row and fly every night of the shift. I don't buy the fact that on the last night, at O dark thirty ,the pilot is not tired.While most companies talk the talk about take -yourself-off-the-shift-if-you-are-tired stuff, try doing that a couple of times and see what happens.The first guys to give you grief will be your fellow pilots.
The "tombstone imperative " forced the FAA to regulate duty time for HEMS operators. Maybe they need to look at the issue once again. Especially since, as Shawn rightly pointed out, most accidents happen at night.
Thoughts?
Alt3.
Joined: Nov 2006
Posts: 103
Likes: 0
From: USA
Company's responsibility,
Good posts devil49, alouette3 and sasless,
I went through all these problems as a post holder in Europe past 5 years. It wasn't easy time for the company's, post holders, pilot's , CAA (JAA) or even financiers. Some times it went too far, but it will found its gold happy medium with a good result. How to interpret the new meaning of regulations was the main problem.
We all wanted to fly as safe as possible. CFIT caused by bad weather is the case I don't want to see anytime or any reason. The most difficult maneuver with HEMS helicopter is 180 degrees turn back! This is the case what all must accept without any accusation. Companies should have policy to give all support for pilot(s) in this situation.
If you think this is gonna be expensive, try accident.
Hostile
I went through all these problems as a post holder in Europe past 5 years. It wasn't easy time for the company's, post holders, pilot's , CAA (JAA) or even financiers. Some times it went too far, but it will found its gold happy medium with a good result. How to interpret the new meaning of regulations was the main problem.
We all wanted to fly as safe as possible. CFIT caused by bad weather is the case I don't want to see anytime or any reason. The most difficult maneuver with HEMS helicopter is 180 degrees turn back! This is the case what all must accept without any accusation. Companies should have policy to give all support for pilot(s) in this situation.
If you think this is gonna be expensive, try accident.
Hostile
Joined: Oct 2003
Posts: 1,030
Likes: 0
From: Over here
IMO flying 7 straight nights and flying every night is safer than flying 3 days and then 3 nights, or vice versa. I find it far easier to fly nights if I stay on nights, and let my body adjust to that. I spent a number of years flying nights full time, and I far prefer that to rotating between days and nights. Constantly changing one's circadian rhythm is tiring and in the long run, dangerous in several ways.