PHI EMS Accident - Sam Houston National Forest, Texas June 8th
Join Date: May 2008
Location: Middle of the Pacific
Posts: 86
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Single v. twin again??? I haven't seen many single engine failures lately around here...
I would prefer a stabilized single engine over a non-stabilized twin any day of the week.
Based on statistics only, what HEMS needs right now is a good single engine with an autopilot that doesn't break the bank.
SASless: My God, man- who and where in the world are you operating that you would encounter so many engine failures? Some of these would have to be maintenance related, no?
I would prefer a stabilized single engine over a non-stabilized twin any day of the week.
Based on statistics only, what HEMS needs right now is a good single engine with an autopilot that doesn't break the bank.
SASless: My God, man- who and where in the world are you operating that you would encounter so many engine failures? Some of these would have to be maintenance related, no?
Join Date: Oct 2003
Location: Over here
Posts: 1,030
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
People are not dying from engine failures. They're dying from CFIT, LTE, and other similar things. I haven't seen a fatal accident caused by engine failure in a long time. We need to concentrate on what is killing us, not red herrings. If I'm flying a 206, engine failure during a vertical takeoff is not at the top of my list, it's near the bottom. Running out of tail rotor authority is near the top. The 206L had barely enough tail rotor authority, and the L3 with increased horsepower is woefully inadequate in that area. Putting an L4 tail rotor on L3s would do far more to increase safety than having another engine, or indeed almost anything that could be done. But nobody seems willing to spend the money to do that, even if one accident would cost more than doing the company's entire fleet. Proper flight instruments and IMC training would do even more. Never happen, GI.
Sasless must have got my engine failures. I've been flying since 1968, most of that full time, and I've never had an engine failure. Not one.
Sasless must have got my engine failures. I've been flying since 1968, most of that full time, and I've never had an engine failure. Not one.
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: foot of a mountain
Posts: 293
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Gomer pilot, my point exactly! I am priviliged to fly As350 B3 and EC130 with KM 150 and 430 with terrain warning and EGPWS and storm scope and digital radio alt. I do not have luxury of IFR let downs, but with my VFR single engine very reliable machine can state my limitations without IFR expectations and be checked more than regularly. Point is wehad a couple of IFR twins going down, how do we prevent CFIT under 135/91 ops?
Velvet,
The twin failures were all in the military and were caused by one engine swallowing part of the engine inlet screen and the other by fuel starvation due to a severed fuel line after some locals objected rudely to being overflown.
The single engine failure was a bearing failure on an Allison engine.
Never trust an engine named after a woman!
I agree with engine failure being less common a cause of accidents than CFIT or Loss of Control after inadvertent IMC.
Night flight is more dangerous than day flight and I would suggest emergency landings in single engine helicopters are more difficult in the dark.
When I speak of "twins", I believe operating the aircraft at a weight that you can maintain flight following an engine failure is part of the deal. Otherwise you are merely flying a single with a better glide ratio than a single with only one engine to start with.
Cat A or Class One performance procedures do not adapt to EMS flying due to the nature of the landing areas in general thus we have to accept engine failures on takeoff until at Vbroc and clear of obstacles will probably wind up with a premature landing. If we limit our weight so we can remain airborne on one engine then the twin really makes sense especially when in the dark or over unfavourable terrain.
IFR currency and actual proficiency with proper avionics will improve our safety record more effectively than adding the second engine to all the aircraft.
The twin failures were all in the military and were caused by one engine swallowing part of the engine inlet screen and the other by fuel starvation due to a severed fuel line after some locals objected rudely to being overflown.
The single engine failure was a bearing failure on an Allison engine.
Never trust an engine named after a woman!
I agree with engine failure being less common a cause of accidents than CFIT or Loss of Control after inadvertent IMC.
Night flight is more dangerous than day flight and I would suggest emergency landings in single engine helicopters are more difficult in the dark.
When I speak of "twins", I believe operating the aircraft at a weight that you can maintain flight following an engine failure is part of the deal. Otherwise you are merely flying a single with a better glide ratio than a single with only one engine to start with.
Cat A or Class One performance procedures do not adapt to EMS flying due to the nature of the landing areas in general thus we have to accept engine failures on takeoff until at Vbroc and clear of obstacles will probably wind up with a premature landing. If we limit our weight so we can remain airborne on one engine then the twin really makes sense especially when in the dark or over unfavourable terrain.
IFR currency and actual proficiency with proper avionics will improve our safety record more effectively than adding the second engine to all the aircraft.
630 feet.
That's how far the wreckage was strewn from the initial impact point, according to the NTSB report.
630 feet.
Two American futbol fields.
He was moving right along right smartly, wasn't he?
Why are we arguing about or even discussing the number of engines again?
That's how far the wreckage was strewn from the initial impact point, according to the NTSB report.
630 feet.
Two American futbol fields.
He was moving right along right smartly, wasn't he?
Why are we arguing about or even discussing the number of engines again?
Engine failures are a concern....LTE on Bell singles is a concern....IMC in a VMC helicopter is a concern....CFIT is a concern....Loss of control following IIMC is a major concern.
Refusing to admit a problem is a major concern.
Refusing to admit a problem is a major concern.
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: retirementland
Age: 79
Posts: 769
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Refusing to admit a clear and demonstrable problem is a sign of an industry sector with a weak safety culture, a risk-running culture and an 'it would never happen to me culture'.
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: West of zero
Posts: 240
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Why are twins better for EMS than singles?
Because most (not all) twins are big and expensive enough to have autopilots, and most (not all) singles are too small and cheap.
So there. Everything else is gravy.
Because most (not all) twins are big and expensive enough to have autopilots, and most (not all) singles are too small and cheap.
So there. Everything else is gravy.
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: USA
Age: 58
Posts: 103
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Safety culture must come mandatory for all.
Twin engines are just start for all operations. Why buy good stuff (TWAS, CVRs etc) in the helicopters and give expensive training for NVG, IR, CRM etc. Then destroy all safety with one engine. I know that engine failure is small chance to have, but it is catastrophic, especially during night. That's for sure.
All this must be very organized and equal for all operators. Hello FAA and money holders! Otherwise someone keeps going below the bar.
Hostile
Twin engines are just start for all operations. Why buy good stuff (TWAS, CVRs etc) in the helicopters and give expensive training for NVG, IR, CRM etc. Then destroy all safety with one engine. I know that engine failure is small chance to have, but it is catastrophic, especially during night. That's for sure.
All this must be very organized and equal for all operators. Hello FAA and money holders! Otherwise someone keeps going below the bar.
Hostile
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: US
Posts: 186
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Ah, Safety Culture - the elusive leveler of playing fields! The macro beginning. I agree! But what is it, and where to start? I'd start at the CEO level, and at the historical beginning of HEMS to start injecting some sanity.
My three cents:
First, I'd get the word Emergency and all its conotations out of the equation and simply call HEMS/HEMES, whatever, HPT - Helicopter Patient Transport.
Secondly, I'd get the adrenalin out of medical crews and pilots - it seems some of them thrive on "feeling the rush" of adrenalin they excitedly invoke while rushing to the helicopter "to save a life" (noble stuff, no dispute) after the bells go off .
Thirdly, I'd replace the invocation of adrenalin with well paced and simple good old aviation professionalism, just like practiced in operations that don't have accidents at the rate HEMS does.
My three cents:
First, I'd get the word Emergency and all its conotations out of the equation and simply call HEMS/HEMES, whatever, HPT - Helicopter Patient Transport.
Secondly, I'd get the adrenalin out of medical crews and pilots - it seems some of them thrive on "feeling the rush" of adrenalin they excitedly invoke while rushing to the helicopter "to save a life" (noble stuff, no dispute) after the bells go off .
Thirdly, I'd replace the invocation of adrenalin with well paced and simple good old aviation professionalism, just like practiced in operations that don't have accidents at the rate HEMS does.
Thread Starter
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Canada
Posts: 690
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Mention of CEOs - interesting.
Would anyone care to comment on the visibility, leadership & safety stance of any of the US HEMS providers CEOs (or equivalent)?
Would anyone care to comment on the visibility, leadership & safety stance of any of the US HEMS providers CEOs (or equivalent)?
Join Date: May 2008
Location: Middle of the Pacific
Posts: 86
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Noble ideas, I agree.
Here in the USA there are still plenty of programs where the bases are timing pilots from the initial call to pulling collective- they are actually giving them a minimum lift-off time to maintain.
What would you say to a program manager who told you that you will be airborne in your EC135 no later than 5 minutes from taking a call, regardless of the weather or time of day? I recently had someone pose that question to me in a telephone interview at a program I was looking at. And they are SPIFR....
One problem is that it is mostly ex-ground medics running the show in the US- they are adrenaline junkies and even bring their scanners home to listen in when they are not on duty. Something needs to change over here.
Here in the USA there are still plenty of programs where the bases are timing pilots from the initial call to pulling collective- they are actually giving them a minimum lift-off time to maintain.
What would you say to a program manager who told you that you will be airborne in your EC135 no later than 5 minutes from taking a call, regardless of the weather or time of day? I recently had someone pose that question to me in a telephone interview at a program I was looking at. And they are SPIFR....
One problem is that it is mostly ex-ground medics running the show in the US- they are adrenaline junkies and even bring their scanners home to listen in when they are not on duty. Something needs to change over here.
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: West Africa
Posts: 313
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
It must be very hard having the pressure of knowing that you could help someone if you make that flight a sucessful one......but who does it help when it isn't.
It must be harder to turn down a flight but its got to be harder to tell someone that their significant other isn't coming home again.
Why push it so far?
SaSless, I agree refusing to admit a problem exists is a major concerm, whats worse?
Denial or having a problem and denying the solution?
If what will help is NVG than why o why won't the gov either defer some of their gear to help the civvies and delay a few or their missions OR
The civvies delay a few of their night missions till they get the gear needed.
Helicopters are supposed to help others aren't they?
Why do we operate them in a manner that takes lives, not save them.
Maybe I am nieve and ill informed, I will admit that. I am no EMS pilot & so I won't try to pretend I am.
I just don't get it........ It's nice to save some one but it's not helping anyone by risking your life (and crew).
Just don't fly if you don't have the gear and training that you need.
If its the company putting pressure on (I imagine they do) then put pressure back.
Losing a job is better than a life.
I would love to do EMS but it concerns me not only the lack of gear needed, or the accident rate increasing seemingly to the same reasons but the reduction of requirements needed to get a job doing this.
Although 750-1000 hrs will get me in, I may just wait till I have 7500-10,000.
Please guys, use a personal check list with your own personal minimums and stick to them like your life depends on it.
One "NO" on your checklist/minimums list and the flight is a no go.
Thats what I am learning, isn't that a practice used or is it simply a great idea but the old guys don't practice it, they just teach it?
HF
Fly safe.
It must be harder to turn down a flight but its got to be harder to tell someone that their significant other isn't coming home again.
Why push it so far?
SaSless, I agree refusing to admit a problem exists is a major concerm, whats worse?
Denial or having a problem and denying the solution?
If what will help is NVG than why o why won't the gov either defer some of their gear to help the civvies and delay a few or their missions OR
The civvies delay a few of their night missions till they get the gear needed.
Helicopters are supposed to help others aren't they?
Why do we operate them in a manner that takes lives, not save them.
Maybe I am nieve and ill informed, I will admit that. I am no EMS pilot & so I won't try to pretend I am.
I just don't get it........ It's nice to save some one but it's not helping anyone by risking your life (and crew).
Just don't fly if you don't have the gear and training that you need.
If its the company putting pressure on (I imagine they do) then put pressure back.
Losing a job is better than a life.
I would love to do EMS but it concerns me not only the lack of gear needed, or the accident rate increasing seemingly to the same reasons but the reduction of requirements needed to get a job doing this.
Although 750-1000 hrs will get me in, I may just wait till I have 7500-10,000.
Please guys, use a personal check list with your own personal minimums and stick to them like your life depends on it.
One "NO" on your checklist/minimums list and the flight is a no go.
Thats what I am learning, isn't that a practice used or is it simply a great idea but the old guys don't practice it, they just teach it?
HF
Fly safe.
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: US
Posts: 186
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Interesting last three posts.
I'd say the biggest problem in HEMS in the US is not knowing WHAT problem/s exists - sounds a bit esoteric but the culture, aka mindset, of the overall utilizatiion of HEMS in the US, perhaps world, involving all those in the mix from ground providers to dispatchers, etc. is rush, rush, rush, time is life, and money! From my perspective this may currently be considered fact and requirement but these points are the antithesis of safe flight operations and from my POV constitute THE primary cause of our accidents.
CEOs? I have no beef, except to say they need to shoulder ALL the responsibility reference everything that happens in their companies! Responsibility cannot be delegated or shared, and total responsibility for accidents does rest with the CEO - that's where the buck starts and stops. CEOs do have the power to start a paradigm shift in this industry such that the adrenalin and rush, rush rush, and etc. is replaced with professional flight operations IAW proven established criteria. The starting point of that shift would be to get rid of all reference to the word Emergency and replace it with normal flight operations definitions and/or acronyms!
We can talk ourselves blue about all the nuts and bolts of this industry, i.e. weather, equipment, takeoff times, etc., but until we decide that identifying what has to be changed on the macro level is what will lead to a lot of very worthwhile micro level changes this is going nowhere and our accident rate/s will persist - this sort of thing always has been the case, always will be!
I'd say we need to discuss macro-level ideas as the starting point to reducing the HEMS accident rate.
I'd say the biggest problem in HEMS in the US is not knowing WHAT problem/s exists - sounds a bit esoteric but the culture, aka mindset, of the overall utilizatiion of HEMS in the US, perhaps world, involving all those in the mix from ground providers to dispatchers, etc. is rush, rush, rush, time is life, and money! From my perspective this may currently be considered fact and requirement but these points are the antithesis of safe flight operations and from my POV constitute THE primary cause of our accidents.
CEOs? I have no beef, except to say they need to shoulder ALL the responsibility reference everything that happens in their companies! Responsibility cannot be delegated or shared, and total responsibility for accidents does rest with the CEO - that's where the buck starts and stops. CEOs do have the power to start a paradigm shift in this industry such that the adrenalin and rush, rush rush, and etc. is replaced with professional flight operations IAW proven established criteria. The starting point of that shift would be to get rid of all reference to the word Emergency and replace it with normal flight operations definitions and/or acronyms!
We can talk ourselves blue about all the nuts and bolts of this industry, i.e. weather, equipment, takeoff times, etc., but until we decide that identifying what has to be changed on the macro level is what will lead to a lot of very worthwhile micro level changes this is going nowhere and our accident rate/s will persist - this sort of thing always has been the case, always will be!
I'd say we need to discuss macro-level ideas as the starting point to reducing the HEMS accident rate.
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Lisbon - Portugal
Age: 70
Posts: 76
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Safe EMS
I humbly think that twin engines, two pilots, pilots decision not influenced by medic crew information , highly experienced pilots, well equipped helicopters, safe culture, are the response to avoid accidents. For some reason the HEMS accident rate in Europe is much lower than in the US. A medical emergency is allways an emercency even if you want to call it another name, wanting to rush to save lives is normal, but none of this as to interfere with pilots decision making, for a safe flight.
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: foot of a mountain
Posts: 293
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
OK, let me get this straight from the preverbial horses mouth. I have to operate twins to start with. The fact that I am at 5500ft temps in summer from 30-45 degrees does not matter. The fact that I only have 4 airports with IFR capability covering 48 million people does not matter. The fact that I am in a 3rd world country does not matter. I just have to change the CEO, improove the ground facilities to accommodate my twin IFR machines all by myself and increase the 11 heliports at hospitols who can handle heli's(single weight and if twin probably only 6) to whatever I need to gain my 2.5-3 hr range should not matter. As long as I have a twin, be it 139/N3/332/76++, I am a safe operation and if not accomplisheble(spelling?) tough cookie for those who need the outreach doctors and 2.5 hr ferry to a hospital who can handle their emergency?
Wha do you suggest? The USA is a developed country but clearly not thatdeveloped. Europe is great, but look at the amount of helo's/ square kilo. Should I not have the right to protect myself against the biggest ciller with my stable single (very important modern) platform?
No lack of safety culture, justa reality?
Wha do you suggest? The USA is a developed country but clearly not thatdeveloped. Europe is great, but look at the amount of helo's/ square kilo. Should I not have the right to protect myself against the biggest ciller with my stable single (very important modern) platform?
No lack of safety culture, justa reality?
Oh, we know how to define the problem over here....defining the right solution is what is tripping us up right now.
We have a finger pointing game going on between all parties and no one wants to belly up to the bar and admit to being part of the problem.
Ask those operations who "time" takeoffs if they are overlooking the risks that one procedure produces.
Ask the helicopter operator who by habit throw the pilot under the bus whenever any kind of criticism occurs....reckon they will admit they are part of the problem?
Ask the pilots who ignore the FAR's Part 135 requirement for adequate night surface lighting and continue to flog over dark and often mountainous terrain.
The list goes on and on....the industry has a problem and it is made up of hundreds of "links" that make up the well known "accident chain".
Listing the problems is easy....finding a "safe" and economical solution is the hard bit.
It is not as simple as everyone upgrading to twins.....as evidenced by the numbers of Twins that find their way to the scrap pile.
It will take a total change to the attitudes and safety culture of the industry to bring about the real change. When partnered with improved techological aids and modern training dedicated to the right issues , then we can get to the place we should be.
We have a finger pointing game going on between all parties and no one wants to belly up to the bar and admit to being part of the problem.
Ask those operations who "time" takeoffs if they are overlooking the risks that one procedure produces.
Ask the helicopter operator who by habit throw the pilot under the bus whenever any kind of criticism occurs....reckon they will admit they are part of the problem?
Ask the pilots who ignore the FAR's Part 135 requirement for adequate night surface lighting and continue to flog over dark and often mountainous terrain.
The list goes on and on....the industry has a problem and it is made up of hundreds of "links" that make up the well known "accident chain".
Listing the problems is easy....finding a "safe" and economical solution is the hard bit.
It is not as simple as everyone upgrading to twins.....as evidenced by the numbers of Twins that find their way to the scrap pile.
It will take a total change to the attitudes and safety culture of the industry to bring about the real change. When partnered with improved techological aids and modern training dedicated to the right issues , then we can get to the place we should be.
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: US
Posts: 186
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
SASLESS Quote: "It will take a total change to the attitudes and safety culture of the industry to bring about the real change. When partnered with improved techological aids and modern training dedicated to the right issues , then we can get to the place we should be."
Exactly.
Lot of old school traditional baggage floating around in US HEMS that is contrary to safe operating aviation principles. Those have to be identified, exposed, and solutions devised and implemented.
As to the natural pressure of going out to save a life - that's a fine example of the attitude that has to be replaced with simple professionalism. A pilot's job is to fly, not save lives. The saving of a life MAY be incidental to the HEMS pilot's job - it is the province of the medical folks to try assure that.
A vast majority of the patients/victims we fly are pretty much preordained to live, or die. I know, that seems a rude statement but it is based on the fact I've seen only a few patients medical folks have said to been saved by the existence of the helicopter. Dealing with patient/victim morbidity is another story though, and from what I see is one of the real financial/economic reason for HEMS success, and why insurance companies put up with the cost of it.
We want to give our patients the best chance possible, but not at the expense of creating more patients and victims amongst flight crew/s.
Exactly.
Lot of old school traditional baggage floating around in US HEMS that is contrary to safe operating aviation principles. Those have to be identified, exposed, and solutions devised and implemented.
As to the natural pressure of going out to save a life - that's a fine example of the attitude that has to be replaced with simple professionalism. A pilot's job is to fly, not save lives. The saving of a life MAY be incidental to the HEMS pilot's job - it is the province of the medical folks to try assure that.
A vast majority of the patients/victims we fly are pretty much preordained to live, or die. I know, that seems a rude statement but it is based on the fact I've seen only a few patients medical folks have said to been saved by the existence of the helicopter. Dealing with patient/victim morbidity is another story though, and from what I see is one of the real financial/economic reason for HEMS success, and why insurance companies put up with the cost of it.
We want to give our patients the best chance possible, but not at the expense of creating more patients and victims amongst flight crew/s.
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: USA
Posts: 336
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Had to add my 2 c worth. As a current EMS pilot in the US, I feel that there are a few things that need to be addressed by all.
(1) Don't expect the CEOs to do anything. Their first and foremost responsiblity is to the Board and the stockholders. If anything conflicts with that(i.e bottom line), such as enhanced safety tools and higher wages etc. it will not fly-----if you will excuse the pun.
(2) The reason the US has such a high accident rate is because of the risk tolerant culture here versus the risk averse culture everywhere. The reason? The Pioneering Spirit, the Way the West Was Won and all that jazz.
(3) Canada has a similar history(re: pioneering spirit etc) but the accident rate is significantly lower there.Why? Because Canada did not have a Vietnam War. I know I have p----d off a few Vets here. This is not personal. It is about the culture. And like it or not the culture here was set by the hundreds of Vietnam era pilots who moved into the industry and set the standards and who are still out there ----above the law and below the radar. I know, I interact with a few on a daily basis.They are typically, anti-authority(Ops Manual is all crap
) anti technology(I flew without a radalt for 20 years why do we need it now?), resistant to change (NVG's, Risk assesment, Operational Control---pshaw!!
) and with very little people skills(Get in shut
up and since I have been doing this for so long don't tell me anything!!). Not surprisingly, it will take a couple of generations and ,unfortunately, lot of bent metal and lives before anything changes.Hopefully, the newer crop from the Military or the Civillian side will make the change happen.
Flame on.
Alt3.
(1) Don't expect the CEOs to do anything. Their first and foremost responsiblity is to the Board and the stockholders. If anything conflicts with that(i.e bottom line), such as enhanced safety tools and higher wages etc. it will not fly-----if you will excuse the pun.
(2) The reason the US has such a high accident rate is because of the risk tolerant culture here versus the risk averse culture everywhere. The reason? The Pioneering Spirit, the Way the West Was Won and all that jazz.
(3) Canada has a similar history(re: pioneering spirit etc) but the accident rate is significantly lower there.Why? Because Canada did not have a Vietnam War. I know I have p----d off a few Vets here. This is not personal. It is about the culture. And like it or not the culture here was set by the hundreds of Vietnam era pilots who moved into the industry and set the standards and who are still out there ----above the law and below the radar. I know, I interact with a few on a daily basis.They are typically, anti-authority(Ops Manual is all crap
) anti technology(I flew without a radalt for 20 years why do we need it now?), resistant to change (NVG's, Risk assesment, Operational Control---pshaw!!) and with very little people skills(Get in shut up and since I have been doing this for so long don't tell me anything!!). Not surprisingly, it will take a couple of generations and ,unfortunately, lot of bent metal and lives before anything changes.Hopefully, the newer crop from the Military or the Civillian side will make the change happen.Flame on.
Alt3.