US EMS Pilots Are Not Very Innovative
Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: With my head in the clouds
Age: 54
Posts: 108
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I keep thinking about IHL's post (#21?).
How is it that the same industry can have one operator that can go 35 years with no fatals, but have another that (according to SASless) can be expected to have a fatal on average every13 months?
Surely there is more than SPVFR at play...
How is it that the same industry can have one operator that can go 35 years with no fatals, but have another that (according to SASless) can be expected to have a fatal on average every13 months?
Surely there is more than SPVFR at play...
Thread Starter
Whirlwind,
I would suggest that "one person" is each of us.
Each one of us should be brave enough to say "NO!" when exposed to an unreasonable risk, bad procedure, bad policy, or wrong headed decision.
Major changes come from many small changes.
We have to risk our jobs at times to do this.
We risk our lives otherwise, so the choice should be easy, even though in reality it is just the reverse.
If pilots would begin to support one another in refusing to accept the existing situation and work together towards improving the standards, policies, procedures, and demanding.....yes...demanding the operator change regardless of the "minimum" standards now being embraced then the whole EMS industry will benefit immediately.
If you employer puts you at risk by providing you a single engine helicopter with minimum instrument flying equipment, demands you fly over dark terrain at night, refuses to provide NVG's, refuses to put autopilots on the aircraft, and expects you to fly in marginal weather....REFUSE TO VIOLATE PART 135 REQUIREMENTS FOR VFR FLIGHT. Stay over a well lighted area....and stay out of marginal weather at night.
You all do it....violate the requirement for adequate surface lights to control the aircraft without reference to instruments....I know I did sometimes. Why ever take that risk particularly in marginal weather.
Just say "NO!".
That one step alone would go a very long ways towards reducing the death toll we experience right now....and have ever since EMS helicopters started flying.
It sounds simple....why cannot EMS pilots do that?
If you are reading this and willingly fly over those dark holes in the terrain....why can you not find another lighted route to your destination or refuse to take the direct...dark...deadly path?
I would suggest that "one person" is each of us.
Each one of us should be brave enough to say "NO!" when exposed to an unreasonable risk, bad procedure, bad policy, or wrong headed decision.
Major changes come from many small changes.
We have to risk our jobs at times to do this.
We risk our lives otherwise, so the choice should be easy, even though in reality it is just the reverse.
If pilots would begin to support one another in refusing to accept the existing situation and work together towards improving the standards, policies, procedures, and demanding.....yes...demanding the operator change regardless of the "minimum" standards now being embraced then the whole EMS industry will benefit immediately.
If you employer puts you at risk by providing you a single engine helicopter with minimum instrument flying equipment, demands you fly over dark terrain at night, refuses to provide NVG's, refuses to put autopilots on the aircraft, and expects you to fly in marginal weather....REFUSE TO VIOLATE PART 135 REQUIREMENTS FOR VFR FLIGHT. Stay over a well lighted area....and stay out of marginal weather at night.
You all do it....violate the requirement for adequate surface lights to control the aircraft without reference to instruments....I know I did sometimes. Why ever take that risk particularly in marginal weather.
Just say "NO!".
That one step alone would go a very long ways towards reducing the death toll we experience right now....and have ever since EMS helicopters started flying.
It sounds simple....why cannot EMS pilots do that?
If you are reading this and willingly fly over those dark holes in the terrain....why can you not find another lighted route to your destination or refuse to take the direct...dark...deadly path?
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: US
Posts: 186
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
All,
I would suggest that "one person" is each of us. Yes, to a point. What is additionally required is that we, each of us, recognize this situation is not being addressed excepting by a lot of alphabet groups and administrators who haven't one single clue about reality, just their concept of reality via whatever statistics they fuddle around with at the occasion of discussion - there needs to be a "gate-keeper" to all their well-intended convolution. That "gate-keeper" can get them on track - and it is not the IHST, or HAI, or any of those fascinated with process and data etc. It takes a leader!
Each one of us should be brave enough to say "NO!" when exposed to an unreasonable risk, bad procedure, bad policy, or wrong headed decision. In the company I work for the easiest way to the dole is not to say no, or fail to listen when a crewmember says enough, is enough. No courage required. It is really fun to say no, and then move on, knowing everyone is alive and well - of course the patient might still be in the dumps but better one in the dump, than four!
Major changes come from many small changes. True, but it is a LOT faster coming about when one conductor stands before the orchestra - orchestrating those small changes.
We have to risk our jobs at times to do this. Certainly a consideration, best handled by saying little, and lighting one's employer's imagination with the consequences of mucking about with professional employees who do know how to use the phone, the internet, the ........ it does work, but it has to be very subtle.
We risk our lives otherwise, so the choice should be easy, even though in reality it is just the reverse. The most important person on the aircraft is the pilot - if he or she, sitting on the pointy end, makes it home in one piece there is a lot of probabilty all others will as well. That alone makes it a joy for me to say no! I love it.
If pilots would begin to support one another in refusing to accept the existing situation and work together towards improving the standards, policies, procedures, and demanding.....yes...demanding the operator change regardless of the "minimum" standards now being embraced then the whole EMS industry will benefit immediately. Again, the company I work for will literally fire anyone, throughout the organization, who considers behaving unprofessionally - of course those who work for Brand - X might be interested in what you advocate (which is excellent in the short run), or come work with us. The minimums are when one stops flying, not when one starts to do so.
If you employer puts you at risk by providing you a single engine helicopter with minimum instrument flying equipment, demands you fly over dark terrain at night, refuses to provide NVG's, refuses to put autopilots on the aircraft, and expects you to fly in marginal weather....REFUSE TO VIOLATE PART 135 REQUIREMENTS FOR VFR FLIGHT. Stay over a well lighted area....and stay out of marginal weather at night. True. Ignominious defeat is the act of doing oneself in (however couched), with all good intent, but lacking in results. Not getting the job done via crashing, is just that. Sad stuff, but it happens in this very very immature industry purportedly led by mature leaders - not! In the US all the do-gooders inside the beltway literally have their eyes in the headlights, and not on the real ball - the ball they need to follow - the leader who can put it right. We need to find that silver bullet, and he/she does exist! The Warren Buffet of our problems.
You all do it....violate the requirement for adequate surface lights to control the aircraft without reference to instruments....I know I did sometimes. Why ever take that risk particularly in marginal weather. Nope - not a chance, and I mean it. Or, Yup, you're absolutely right.
Just say "NO!". Then walk away and watch the idiots banter! I once had an argument with a fellow about whether the aircraft was in service, or not. I told him it was my neck, not his, and if he wished to see his on the line, it was a phone call away - never heard from him again. The power of suggestion - it was delivered with a soft and gentle inherited English accent, just for effect. Good stuff.
That one step alone would go a very long ways towards reducing the death toll we experience right now....and have ever since EMS helicopters started flying. True - but the interesting thing appears the illusion of being pushed may be more bound in folks knowing they are doing the right thing - albeit with the wrong instrument, wrong qualifications, wrong skill sets/s - like a deer in the headlights. It takes leadership to keep them safe, from the top. The blood is on the hands of our so-called leaders, and some are starting to realize it.
It sounds simple....why cannot EMS pilots do that? Because they can't see the end of time - that just happens to be shortly around the corner.
If you are reading this and willingly fly over those dark holes in the terrain....why can you not find another lighted route to your destination or refuse to take the direct...dark...deadly path? Absolutely. I remember in RVN telling guys to stay a little closer to efficient transport routes so if the world turns sour at least they'll be able to thumb a ride, or confiscate a vehicle - lot better than crashing in the jungle! Different time, different hole, but the same ADM conundrum.
Like Nick would say - 'the more you have to convince yourself there is no problem, the more it comes to light there is' - or something like that. Problem solving ALWAYS distills down to the simplest of things - in this case it is the need for a single leader.
Thanks for your time!
I would suggest that "one person" is each of us. Yes, to a point. What is additionally required is that we, each of us, recognize this situation is not being addressed excepting by a lot of alphabet groups and administrators who haven't one single clue about reality, just their concept of reality via whatever statistics they fuddle around with at the occasion of discussion - there needs to be a "gate-keeper" to all their well-intended convolution. That "gate-keeper" can get them on track - and it is not the IHST, or HAI, or any of those fascinated with process and data etc. It takes a leader!
Each one of us should be brave enough to say "NO!" when exposed to an unreasonable risk, bad procedure, bad policy, or wrong headed decision. In the company I work for the easiest way to the dole is not to say no, or fail to listen when a crewmember says enough, is enough. No courage required. It is really fun to say no, and then move on, knowing everyone is alive and well - of course the patient might still be in the dumps but better one in the dump, than four!
Major changes come from many small changes. True, but it is a LOT faster coming about when one conductor stands before the orchestra - orchestrating those small changes.
We have to risk our jobs at times to do this. Certainly a consideration, best handled by saying little, and lighting one's employer's imagination with the consequences of mucking about with professional employees who do know how to use the phone, the internet, the ........ it does work, but it has to be very subtle.
We risk our lives otherwise, so the choice should be easy, even though in reality it is just the reverse. The most important person on the aircraft is the pilot - if he or she, sitting on the pointy end, makes it home in one piece there is a lot of probabilty all others will as well. That alone makes it a joy for me to say no! I love it.
If pilots would begin to support one another in refusing to accept the existing situation and work together towards improving the standards, policies, procedures, and demanding.....yes...demanding the operator change regardless of the "minimum" standards now being embraced then the whole EMS industry will benefit immediately. Again, the company I work for will literally fire anyone, throughout the organization, who considers behaving unprofessionally - of course those who work for Brand - X might be interested in what you advocate (which is excellent in the short run), or come work with us. The minimums are when one stops flying, not when one starts to do so.
If you employer puts you at risk by providing you a single engine helicopter with minimum instrument flying equipment, demands you fly over dark terrain at night, refuses to provide NVG's, refuses to put autopilots on the aircraft, and expects you to fly in marginal weather....REFUSE TO VIOLATE PART 135 REQUIREMENTS FOR VFR FLIGHT. Stay over a well lighted area....and stay out of marginal weather at night. True. Ignominious defeat is the act of doing oneself in (however couched), with all good intent, but lacking in results. Not getting the job done via crashing, is just that. Sad stuff, but it happens in this very very immature industry purportedly led by mature leaders - not! In the US all the do-gooders inside the beltway literally have their eyes in the headlights, and not on the real ball - the ball they need to follow - the leader who can put it right. We need to find that silver bullet, and he/she does exist! The Warren Buffet of our problems.
You all do it....violate the requirement for adequate surface lights to control the aircraft without reference to instruments....I know I did sometimes. Why ever take that risk particularly in marginal weather. Nope - not a chance, and I mean it. Or, Yup, you're absolutely right.
Just say "NO!". Then walk away and watch the idiots banter! I once had an argument with a fellow about whether the aircraft was in service, or not. I told him it was my neck, not his, and if he wished to see his on the line, it was a phone call away - never heard from him again. The power of suggestion - it was delivered with a soft and gentle inherited English accent, just for effect. Good stuff.
That one step alone would go a very long ways towards reducing the death toll we experience right now....and have ever since EMS helicopters started flying. True - but the interesting thing appears the illusion of being pushed may be more bound in folks knowing they are doing the right thing - albeit with the wrong instrument, wrong qualifications, wrong skill sets/s - like a deer in the headlights. It takes leadership to keep them safe, from the top. The blood is on the hands of our so-called leaders, and some are starting to realize it.
It sounds simple....why cannot EMS pilots do that? Because they can't see the end of time - that just happens to be shortly around the corner.
If you are reading this and willingly fly over those dark holes in the terrain....why can you not find another lighted route to your destination or refuse to take the direct...dark...deadly path? Absolutely. I remember in RVN telling guys to stay a little closer to efficient transport routes so if the world turns sour at least they'll be able to thumb a ride, or confiscate a vehicle - lot better than crashing in the jungle! Different time, different hole, but the same ADM conundrum.
Like Nick would say - 'the more you have to convince yourself there is no problem, the more it comes to light there is' - or something like that. Problem solving ALWAYS distills down to the simplest of things - in this case it is the need for a single leader.
Thanks for your time!
Last edited by WhirlwindIII; 6th Oct 2008 at 12:30.
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: uk
Posts: 131
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Rash of EMS crashes in the US. Why?
Health Blog : A Rash of Medical Helicopter Crashes Brings Call for Reform
Quite astounding statistics.
I am surprised this has been allowed to accumulate to this level. One of latest crashes involved 3 staff and a one year old girl they were transporting. Very sad.
Hopefully the latest recommendations will bring some changes and less accidents.
Quite astounding statistics.
I am surprised this has been allowed to accumulate to this level. One of latest crashes involved 3 staff and a one year old girl they were transporting. Very sad.
Hopefully the latest recommendations will bring some changes and less accidents.
The proximate causes have been the usual suspects: WX, terrain, night. No mechanical failures of the type that have plagued, e.g. Qantas for whatever reasons recently.
Statisticians will point out that a "clumping" of events is actually usually a sign of randomness rather than a sign of causality.
The NTSC statement implies that there have been more EMS flights in total (some, they say, unnecessary), and again, if one crash in a hundred flights is normal, then 3x the flights will result in 3x the crashes. Normal statistics.
In short, there may be no "why" in terms of an external factor, just chance, influenced by a larger number of rolls of the dice (flights).
The NTSC suggestions are primarily restrictions that would both reduce flights in iffy conditions and also the overall numbers of flights ("Can this be done with ground transport instead?") which may well be effective in the roll/dice sense, but also likely will affect bottom lines for the services that are private.
The most recent (3 crew/1 child/Aurora IL) was to a hospital at which I used to work, so it cut a bit closer to home than usual. I also live under the approach path to a nearby hospital, so the pictures fall off the walls some nights when the crews are doing approaches (practice or for real).
[edit] @tottigol(below) Hee-hee! I see your point. But I'm not one! My post and the one above it were 'imported' from a different thread, which may make them look a little displaced.
There probably is some "use-it-or-lose-it" pressure as mentioned below, affecting go-no go decisions.
Statisticians will point out that a "clumping" of events is actually usually a sign of randomness rather than a sign of causality.
The NTSC statement implies that there have been more EMS flights in total (some, they say, unnecessary), and again, if one crash in a hundred flights is normal, then 3x the flights will result in 3x the crashes. Normal statistics.
In short, there may be no "why" in terms of an external factor, just chance, influenced by a larger number of rolls of the dice (flights).
The NTSC suggestions are primarily restrictions that would both reduce flights in iffy conditions and also the overall numbers of flights ("Can this be done with ground transport instead?") which may well be effective in the roll/dice sense, but also likely will affect bottom lines for the services that are private.
The most recent (3 crew/1 child/Aurora IL) was to a hospital at which I used to work, so it cut a bit closer to home than usual. I also live under the approach path to a nearby hospital, so the pictures fall off the walls some nights when the crews are doing approaches (practice or for real).
[edit] @tottigol(below) Hee-hee! I see your point. But I'm not one! My post and the one above it were 'imported' from a different thread, which may make them look a little displaced.
There probably is some "use-it-or-lose-it" pressure as mentioned below, affecting go-no go decisions.
Last edited by pattern_is_full; 30th Oct 2008 at 22:17.
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: Western MA
Posts: 455
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The rumur in these parts is helos are involved in a 'make work' push. Either make use of them or they may go away. So, to justify their being, previous patient transfers via ground are being handed over to helos and none life-threatening injuries previously delivered to ERs by ground are being flown in. Simply, more flights means more chances for accidents.
Join Date: Feb 2001
Location: Canada
Posts: 579
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Ntsb To Hold 3-day Public Hearing On Ems Operations
SB-08-51
Washington, DC - The National Transportation Safety Board will hold a public hearing on the safety of Helicopter Emergency Medical Services (HEMS) operations. The three-day hearing will begin on February 3, 2009, at the NTSB's Board Room and Conference Center, 429 L'Enfant Plaza, S.W., Washington, D.C.
Helicopter EMS operations provide an important service to the public by transporting seriously ill patients or donor organs to emergency care facilities. The pressure to safely and quickly conduct these operations in various environmental conditions (for example, inclement weather, at night, and unfamiliar landing sites for helicopter operations) has the potential to make HEMS operations more at risk than normal passenger carrying operations.
"We have seen an alarming rise in the numbers of EMS accidents and the Safety Board believes some of these accidents could have been prevented if our recommendations were implemented," said Member Robert Sumwalt, Chairman of the Hearing. "This hearing will be extremely important because it can provide an opportunity to learn more about the industry so that possibly we can make further recommendations that can prevent these accidents and save lives."
The NTSB issued a Special Investigation Report on EMS Operations in January 2006. The report involved the analysis of all EMS-related aviation accidents that occurred from January 2002 through January 2005. There were a total of 55 accidents that occurred during this 3-year window; 41 helicopters and 14 airplanes. These accidents killed 54 people, and seriously injured 19. Analysis of the accidents indicated that 29 of 55 accidents could have been prevented with corrective actions identified in the report.
However, over the past 11 months the Safety Board has investigated nine fatal EMS Accidents with a total of 35 fatalities. In 2008 alone there have been 7 fatal accidents with 28 fatalities. This is a drastic increase in accidents since the Special Investigation Report and therefore has prompted the Safety Board to examine this issue in greater detail by holding this hearing.
There will be witnesses from all EMS communities including pilots, medical personnel, managers, and FAA. The issues that will be discussed during the hearing include:
Operational Structure and Models
Flight Operations
Aircraft Safety Equipment
Training
Oversight
The hearing will be webcast. An agenda and webcast details will be posted on the Board's website, National Transportation Safety Board, when available.
# # #
Media Contact: Keith Holloway
202.314.6100
[email protected]
NTSB Home | << Back to Press Releases Page << | News & Events
Washington, DC - The National Transportation Safety Board will hold a public hearing on the safety of Helicopter Emergency Medical Services (HEMS) operations. The three-day hearing will begin on February 3, 2009, at the NTSB's Board Room and Conference Center, 429 L'Enfant Plaza, S.W., Washington, D.C.
Helicopter EMS operations provide an important service to the public by transporting seriously ill patients or donor organs to emergency care facilities. The pressure to safely and quickly conduct these operations in various environmental conditions (for example, inclement weather, at night, and unfamiliar landing sites for helicopter operations) has the potential to make HEMS operations more at risk than normal passenger carrying operations.
"We have seen an alarming rise in the numbers of EMS accidents and the Safety Board believes some of these accidents could have been prevented if our recommendations were implemented," said Member Robert Sumwalt, Chairman of the Hearing. "This hearing will be extremely important because it can provide an opportunity to learn more about the industry so that possibly we can make further recommendations that can prevent these accidents and save lives."
The NTSB issued a Special Investigation Report on EMS Operations in January 2006. The report involved the analysis of all EMS-related aviation accidents that occurred from January 2002 through January 2005. There were a total of 55 accidents that occurred during this 3-year window; 41 helicopters and 14 airplanes. These accidents killed 54 people, and seriously injured 19. Analysis of the accidents indicated that 29 of 55 accidents could have been prevented with corrective actions identified in the report.
However, over the past 11 months the Safety Board has investigated nine fatal EMS Accidents with a total of 35 fatalities. In 2008 alone there have been 7 fatal accidents with 28 fatalities. This is a drastic increase in accidents since the Special Investigation Report and therefore has prompted the Safety Board to examine this issue in greater detail by holding this hearing.
There will be witnesses from all EMS communities including pilots, medical personnel, managers, and FAA. The issues that will be discussed during the hearing include:
Operational Structure and Models
Flight Operations
Aircraft Safety Equipment
Training
Oversight
The hearing will be webcast. An agenda and webcast details will be posted on the Board's website, National Transportation Safety Board, when available.
# # #
Media Contact: Keith Holloway
202.314.6100
[email protected]
NTSB Home | << Back to Press Releases Page << | News & Events
As I was shaving this morning, an advertisement on the radio nearly made me gash my neck. A local HEMS operation (run as a non-profit by a consortium of hospitals, I believe) runs an occasional ad urging the listener to pay a flat-rate annual fee that will cover the cost of an EMS transport that they might need. An insurance of sorts. But, I was surprised when this ad went on to tell how the pilots are now flying with NVGs to make their ops safer.
rf
rf
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: Kill Box 85CJ
Posts: 49
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
perspective
The US is vast country (UK is roughly the size of Colorado) and don't forget Alaska. The sheer volume of Med Evacs per year, although untracked, would be far higher then anywhere else on the planet. Just wanted to put it in perspective.
