HEMS Accident in Maryland. 4 Killed
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: US
Posts: 186
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Read it. Interesting bit of political spin.
Heard there is a bill pending in Md legislature to end their State Police Medevac program by October 1st.
For all the chest pounding Md State Police exhort that program is no better than anyone else, a second pilot is not going to get a helicopter any place a single pilot cannot, and having only one medic, as they vociferously tout, is an exercise in swoop-and-scoop - seems private industry went the way of two medical providers aboard each HEMS helicopter a long time ago - why not MD? Two providers tends to bring a higher level of care to the patient - two minds, two opinions, two medical professionals working things for the better of the patient, etc.
I'm told they have it in process to requip with AB139s. As outfitted each would cost @21 mil US $ x 10! Give me a break; or, rather, give the taxpayers of MD one! At that cost the entire program could be set up with more suitable medevac helicopters, two pilots, and two medical providers aboard each, at @35% of the cost - do the math! Ridiculous state flying club, and they know it! Love to see CAMTS go in to see what level they really happen to operate on at the present!
Wonder what all the state residents with such programs would say when they saw the breakdown of patients flown from out-of-state who need such transport while transiting or visiting such as MD, or DE, or NJ, or wherever. Tax dollars at work, for everyone!
Needless to say I am not an advocate of government doing things private providers can do.
Heard there is a bill pending in Md legislature to end their State Police Medevac program by October 1st.
For all the chest pounding Md State Police exhort that program is no better than anyone else, a second pilot is not going to get a helicopter any place a single pilot cannot, and having only one medic, as they vociferously tout, is an exercise in swoop-and-scoop - seems private industry went the way of two medical providers aboard each HEMS helicopter a long time ago - why not MD? Two providers tends to bring a higher level of care to the patient - two minds, two opinions, two medical professionals working things for the better of the patient, etc.
I'm told they have it in process to requip with AB139s. As outfitted each would cost @21 mil US $ x 10! Give me a break; or, rather, give the taxpayers of MD one! At that cost the entire program could be set up with more suitable medevac helicopters, two pilots, and two medical providers aboard each, at @35% of the cost - do the math! Ridiculous state flying club, and they know it! Love to see CAMTS go in to see what level they really happen to operate on at the present!
Wonder what all the state residents with such programs would say when they saw the breakdown of patients flown from out-of-state who need such transport while transiting or visiting such as MD, or DE, or NJ, or wherever. Tax dollars at work, for everyone!
Needless to say I am not an advocate of government doing things private providers can do.
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Baltimore
Age: 49
Posts: 26
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: USA (PA)
Age: 47
Posts: 300
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Here is the probable cause published by the NTSB
(NTSB Abstract MAR-09/05)
Sadly so many times in the recent past our fellow EMS colleagues (mostly, but not exclusively) have fallen in the same trap over and over again and yet every time we try to analyze the chain of events, try to learn from it, try to make out the horrific mechanical or procedural or whatnot failure (or the combination hereof) so we can avoid it.
Turns out the it's the same f*** cause yet again! Flying a perfectly serviceable aircraft into the ground because "the pilot thought he knew the area" and could duck beneath the weather.
Although the contributing factors in this case make up for a pretty scary read (the ATC screwups for example): NTSB - Board Meeting - Aircraft Accident Report - District Heights, MD
(for the record: I still think one can learn a lot from the discussions/educated guesswork about the cause of each new accident)
(NTSB Abstract MAR-09/05)
PROBABLE CAUSE
The National Transportation Safety Board determines that the probable cause of this accident was the pilot's attempt to regain visual conditions by performing a rapid descent and his failure to arrest the descent at the minimum descent altitude during a nonprecision approach. Contributing to the accident were (1) the pilot’s limited recent instrument flight experience, (2) the lack of adherence to effective risk management procedures by the Maryland State Police, (3) the pilot’s inadequate assessment of the weather, which led to his decision to accept the flight, (4) the failure of the Potomac Consolidated Terminal Radar Approach Control (PCT) controller to provide the current Andrews Air Force Base weather observation to the pilot, and (5) the increased workload on the pilot due to inadequate Federal Aviation Administration air traffic control handling by Ronald Reagan Washington National Airport Tower and PCT controllers.
The National Transportation Safety Board determines that the probable cause of this accident was the pilot's attempt to regain visual conditions by performing a rapid descent and his failure to arrest the descent at the minimum descent altitude during a nonprecision approach. Contributing to the accident were (1) the pilot’s limited recent instrument flight experience, (2) the lack of adherence to effective risk management procedures by the Maryland State Police, (3) the pilot’s inadequate assessment of the weather, which led to his decision to accept the flight, (4) the failure of the Potomac Consolidated Terminal Radar Approach Control (PCT) controller to provide the current Andrews Air Force Base weather observation to the pilot, and (5) the increased workload on the pilot due to inadequate Federal Aviation Administration air traffic control handling by Ronald Reagan Washington National Airport Tower and PCT controllers.
Turns out the it's the same f*** cause yet again! Flying a perfectly serviceable aircraft into the ground because "the pilot thought he knew the area" and could duck beneath the weather.
Although the contributing factors in this case make up for a pretty scary read (the ATC screwups for example): NTSB - Board Meeting - Aircraft Accident Report - District Heights, MD
(for the record: I still think one can learn a lot from the discussions/educated guesswork about the cause of each new accident)
Last edited by Phil77; 29th Oct 2009 at 13:45.
"Just a pilot"
As far as I can tell by looking at the stats, a 2 pilot crew is the safest possible configuration, single/twin, VFR/IFR or day/night. Some of that data is affected by the profile in which 2 pilot crews are commonly used as the industry presently exists, and 2 pilots isn't an absolute protection against risk in that skewed data, it appears to be the safest single variable.
I would love to see those stats D49. I would be very intrested in comparison of accidents that are more comparable: say compare rates for SPIFR equipped twins.
Crewed by one pilot V one pilot and trained front seat crewmember V two pilots.
Crewed by one pilot V one pilot and trained front seat crewmember V two pilots.
Shawn,
I would beg to differ with your statement as written. In theory it would seem so but we have to remember the "bottom feeding" mentality of EMS operators when it comes to costs.
The norm would be to hire minimum time co-pilots, usually part-timers with no benefits, poor pay, and use the lure of hours building as the lure. At least that has been my past experience.
That practice might work for a fixed wing operation that flies into airports but for EMS operations far more experience is needed due to the nature of the flight operations conducted.
The avoidance of IIMC events alone.....would pay far more benefit to improving safety than anything else the industry could do.
If that second pilot/crew member achieved that.....I would agree with your statement.
I would beg to differ with your statement as written. In theory it would seem so but we have to remember the "bottom feeding" mentality of EMS operators when it comes to costs.
The norm would be to hire minimum time co-pilots, usually part-timers with no benefits, poor pay, and use the lure of hours building as the lure. At least that has been my past experience.
That practice might work for a fixed wing operation that flies into airports but for EMS operations far more experience is needed due to the nature of the flight operations conducted.
The avoidance of IIMC events alone.....would pay far more benefit to improving safety than anything else the industry could do.
If that second pilot/crew member achieved that.....I would agree with your statement.
