NTSB says EMS accident rate is too high
Join Date: Oct 2003
Location: Over here
Posts: 1,030
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
IME we rarely save lives, but we do reduce morbidity, especially with cardiac and stroke victims. Where I work, it takes far more than an hour to get a patient to a stroke or cardiac center by ground ambulance, and that's if the traffic is light approaching and in the big cities. It's not unusual to have traffic jams on the freeways that take hours to clear. All the while, the stroke or cardiac patient's chances of a full recovery are diminishing. A helicopter can get them there in a half hour or less. It's the same for trauma patients, but for most of those the outcome will be similar in an ambulance or a helicopter, and the main difference is in how long they will be in pain, and how many hospitals they will have to pay. Local hospitals can't deal with major trauma or broken bones, they just do first aid and ship the patients out to a larger hospital. It's not ideal, I admit, but that's what we have here. Skipping the local hospital, which the ground ambulance can't legally do, actually saves money, even if it doesn't save lives. And make no mistake, the health care industry here is about money, nothing else. The public isn't paying for HEMS, at least not directly, the end user is. The government is being kept out of the health care industry because it would reduce the enormous profits the insurance companies and the big hospital corporations make. Haven't you heard the outcry against 'Obamacare', which actually does little to help patients, and much more to help corporations? Even a little public help is too much for the teahadists.
I would be happy enough if the FAA suddenly mandated twin-engine, IFR helicopters for all EMS operations, although I would probably join the unemployed. First, the required number of those helicopters just don't exist, and it would take years before the factories could produce them. Second, the FAA simply does not have the authority to make such a mandate. This isn't England, it's the US of A, where the government is subject to the will of the people, not vice versa. At least theoretically. In reality, the government is subject to the will of the corporations which bribe the politicians. Either way, such a mandate is simply not possible, regardless of whether it's a good idea or even morally right.
The situation is as it is, and will remain so for at least the foreseeable future, and no amount of petitioning will change it, unless accompanied by millions of dollars. I have the same right as Shell Oil or the Koch brothers to bribe members of Congress to do what I ask. I just don't have the millions of dollars. The system isn't good, or right, but I don't have any idea how to change it. Those who can, have a vested interest in keeping things the way they are. So complaining about how things are done in the US may make Europeans feel better, but it will do nothing else.
I would be happy enough if the FAA suddenly mandated twin-engine, IFR helicopters for all EMS operations, although I would probably join the unemployed. First, the required number of those helicopters just don't exist, and it would take years before the factories could produce them. Second, the FAA simply does not have the authority to make such a mandate. This isn't England, it's the US of A, where the government is subject to the will of the people, not vice versa. At least theoretically. In reality, the government is subject to the will of the corporations which bribe the politicians. Either way, such a mandate is simply not possible, regardless of whether it's a good idea or even morally right.
The situation is as it is, and will remain so for at least the foreseeable future, and no amount of petitioning will change it, unless accompanied by millions of dollars. I have the same right as Shell Oil or the Koch brothers to bribe members of Congress to do what I ask. I just don't have the millions of dollars. The system isn't good, or right, but I don't have any idea how to change it. Those who can, have a vested interest in keeping things the way they are. So complaining about how things are done in the US may make Europeans feel better, but it will do nothing else.
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: Jankara
Age: 64
Posts: 377
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Gomer Pylot,
Your last post is probably the most lucid and honest I've seen in a long time with its views on politics, corporate might and balancing ethics and morality with profit and reality. Well said. You, sir, are a true American "common man". Keep up the good work
Your last post is probably the most lucid and honest I've seen in a long time with its views on politics, corporate might and balancing ethics and morality with profit and reality. Well said. You, sir, are a true American "common man". Keep up the good work
Avoid imitations
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Wandering the FIR and cyberspace often at highly unsociable times
Posts: 14,576
Received 422 Likes
on
222 Posts
So complaining about how things are done in the US may make Europeans feel better, but it will do nothing else.
Night helicopter ops will always have risks due to the nature of the job but it's disappointing if certain known risks cannot be reduced.
I didn't like the rule changes we were forced to obey in UK regarding night operations. It affected all of us, and we complained too. It affected the price of later contracts and therefore salaries in some sectors. However, there were a number of high profile accidents, as already mentioned and that was seen as unacceptable.
I, for one, believe that the USA deserves better equipment for the job in hand. If the industry isn't interested in providing better equipment and training to use it (and from what has been said here, it obviously isn't, due to loss of commercial margins) and the FAA won't mandate a change, then things will never progress. Companies will continue to buy cheaper aircraft and expect pilots to just carry on regardless.
The USA, as a huge economy, quite rightly likes to reflect on the fantastic advances it has traditionally made in all other branches of the aviation industry. Not to forget it put men on the moon almost 43 years ago. So it seems very strange that it won't even consider phasing out non-autopilot and otherwise under-equipped, non IFR helicopters for night roles.
I await the accident report of the all-too recent "organ retrieval" accident.
Join Date: Oct 2003
Location: Over here
Posts: 1,030
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
ShyTorque, I thought I had made my point, but obviously I didn't. It's not possible to suddenly just abandon several hundred aircraft and replace them with non-existent aircraft. They do not exist. There is an effort to find an acceptable, certifiable autopilot for existing aircraft, and that will probably be done as soon as someone comes up with one. The other problem is purely economic. It's not economically feasible to quit using current aircraft in some areas. We either use what can make a profit, or we quit HEMS entirely in a huge portion of the USA. The government will not, cannot, take over EMS operations here. It has to be done by the private sector, and that can only be done if there is a profit. I do believe the government should be doing the job, but the majority of the citizens do not, thus it won't happen soon. In an ideal world, things would be different, but this world, and this country, are not ideal, and never will be. We have to do the best we can with what we have, and keep trying to slowly make things better.
GP,
What about the EMS programs that lose money on their operation but the hospital makes a profit after making up the loss incurred by the EMS operation as a result of the knock on effect of increased business at the hospital and clinics from patients drawn into the system?
Yes...in general...the EMS business is just that....making money but not necessarily at the Helicopter Unit level.
I would argue against the concept the Guvmint shoud provide the service.
Fundamentally I am opposed to the government getting into any "business" that is not a basic function of government. Search and Rescue...for example is a necessary government function but medical transportation is not in my view.
Just as I woud not have the government doing pothole repair.....I would have them paying for the repair but contracting it out.....in some states the liquor stores are run by the State or County.....and again I would take them out of that business and let the private sector run the liquour business.....with the State just taking some Tax money off the proceeds (and leaving all the cousins and brother-in-laws to find a private sector job instead of being a ward of the State).
Why is it wrong for the insurance industry selling a product and making a profit....and health car being provided by private organizations rather than the government?
I do agree we need to get the money out of politics and government out of business....along with business out of government....but as you so clearly stated...that just ain't gonna happen shy of a bona fide Revolution that would make the French one look like a garden party.
The way I see it...as long as there is a need for a service....and someone can provide it at a reasonable price...there will be buyers of that service. As the law of economy of scale works...folks wil find a way to group together to obtain bulk rates.
The key is to eliminate the barriers to fair and free competition where the providers with the best/cheapest product will prosper and those that cannot compete will fail.
You might recall in the earl days of the EMS business an outfit called Rocky Mountain Helicopters that found itself unable to get insurance because of their safety record. They soon went out of business....and other outfits formed and have become quite successful.
What about the EMS programs that lose money on their operation but the hospital makes a profit after making up the loss incurred by the EMS operation as a result of the knock on effect of increased business at the hospital and clinics from patients drawn into the system?
Yes...in general...the EMS business is just that....making money but not necessarily at the Helicopter Unit level.
I would argue against the concept the Guvmint shoud provide the service.
Fundamentally I am opposed to the government getting into any "business" that is not a basic function of government. Search and Rescue...for example is a necessary government function but medical transportation is not in my view.
Just as I woud not have the government doing pothole repair.....I would have them paying for the repair but contracting it out.....in some states the liquor stores are run by the State or County.....and again I would take them out of that business and let the private sector run the liquour business.....with the State just taking some Tax money off the proceeds (and leaving all the cousins and brother-in-laws to find a private sector job instead of being a ward of the State).
Why is it wrong for the insurance industry selling a product and making a profit....and health car being provided by private organizations rather than the government?
I do agree we need to get the money out of politics and government out of business....along with business out of government....but as you so clearly stated...that just ain't gonna happen shy of a bona fide Revolution that would make the French one look like a garden party.
The way I see it...as long as there is a need for a service....and someone can provide it at a reasonable price...there will be buyers of that service. As the law of economy of scale works...folks wil find a way to group together to obtain bulk rates.
The key is to eliminate the barriers to fair and free competition where the providers with the best/cheapest product will prosper and those that cannot compete will fail.
You might recall in the earl days of the EMS business an outfit called Rocky Mountain Helicopters that found itself unable to get insurance because of their safety record. They soon went out of business....and other outfits formed and have become quite successful.
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: United States
Age: 62
Posts: 71
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The commercial realities of this business are what they are in the markets they serve. I’ve witnessed them first hand on both sides of the pond where decisions were made based purely on economic realities. In the US margins, are wafer thin and generally not investor friendly relative to the risk involved and the rate of return generated.
At the end of the day we are in business wholly because someone wishes to generate a reasonable rate of return on an investment. In any business risks are only mitigated to the extent that a loss might be acceptable when measured relative to the investment required to mitigate the risk entirely, after which there is an overall and rapidly diminishing rate of return or interest.
With 5% net margins commonly experienced by helicopter operators, even a larger operator earning $1 billion in revenues a year cannot afford too many strategic mistakes, let alone continued fleet renewal or upgrades. $50 million a year will get you a few helicopters, maybe some regulatory compliance, a few essential maintenance upgrades and maybe fix some maintenance/pilot errors. It hardly extends to satisfying investors who might reasonably expect a much higher rate of return parking their cash else where, with significantly lower risk. As Gomer said private companies are neither able, nor sensibly willing to consider some of the suggestions made – they simply could not continue in business,; at least in the US.
Pilots/Engineers are there to fulfill a job, that someone else is willing to provide, and must decide for themselves if the risk is acceptable to them. In the meanwhile the private job providers here in the US will continue to decide whether it is worth while being in the business, irrespective of what regulatory, crews or others may wish. In both cases of course, the balance of value/risk is worth more to some than others and perhaps a matter of perspective.
At the end of the day we are in business wholly because someone wishes to generate a reasonable rate of return on an investment. In any business risks are only mitigated to the extent that a loss might be acceptable when measured relative to the investment required to mitigate the risk entirely, after which there is an overall and rapidly diminishing rate of return or interest.
With 5% net margins commonly experienced by helicopter operators, even a larger operator earning $1 billion in revenues a year cannot afford too many strategic mistakes, let alone continued fleet renewal or upgrades. $50 million a year will get you a few helicopters, maybe some regulatory compliance, a few essential maintenance upgrades and maybe fix some maintenance/pilot errors. It hardly extends to satisfying investors who might reasonably expect a much higher rate of return parking their cash else where, with significantly lower risk. As Gomer said private companies are neither able, nor sensibly willing to consider some of the suggestions made – they simply could not continue in business,; at least in the US.
Pilots/Engineers are there to fulfill a job, that someone else is willing to provide, and must decide for themselves if the risk is acceptable to them. In the meanwhile the private job providers here in the US will continue to decide whether it is worth while being in the business, irrespective of what regulatory, crews or others may wish. In both cases of course, the balance of value/risk is worth more to some than others and perhaps a matter of perspective.
Avoid imitations
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Wandering the FIR and cyberspace often at highly unsociable times
Posts: 14,576
Received 422 Likes
on
222 Posts
Gomyer, please note that I wrote "phasing out", not "suddenly abandon". The CAA didn't mandate a sudden abandonment, it gave a date in the future for a requirement for stabilized helicopters. 
Are we finished demanding twins and accepting the fact the number of engines is not the issue? Have we finally accepted it is not engine failures that are killing off the EMS crews? Perhaps there is progress being made....that being understanding the causes of the problem and not the symptoms of the problem.
It is CFIT or LOC following IIMC that is killing them, and that it does four times as often at Night than in the daytime that is the biggest killer.
Let's focus on the root cause of the problem shall we?
It is CFIT or LOC following IIMC that is killing them, and that it does four times as often at Night than in the daytime that is the biggest killer.
Let's focus on the root cause of the problem shall we?
Avoid imitations
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Wandering the FIR and cyberspace often at highly unsociable times
Posts: 14,576
Received 422 Likes
on
222 Posts
Are we finished demanding twins and accepting the fact the number of engines is not the issue?
Join Date: Feb 2001
Location: Europe
Posts: 535
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
SASless
Ok let's indeed focus on the issue. Would you like to propose a detailed spec of helicopter you would mandate if you were making the decisions at the FAA, in order to provide far safer HEMS at night, at a viable cost? And what timescale would you implement it over?
Ok let's indeed focus on the issue. Would you like to propose a detailed spec of helicopter you would mandate if you were making the decisions at the FAA, in order to provide far safer HEMS at night, at a viable cost? And what timescale would you implement it over?
An interesting topic without doubt but whilst we are on the subject of who pays for what, can we just remember that the UK Government doesn't pay for HEMS and AA, they are funded by charities.
Perhaps this is a model that could be considered by the USA since the relatively few UK taxpayers (compared to the US) manage to fund twin-engine IFR helciopters quite satisfactorily. No bribing of politicians, no profiteering, just people raising money for a service and paying an equitable amount for a suitably safe service at that.
Perhaps this is a model that could be considered by the USA since the relatively few UK taxpayers (compared to the US) manage to fund twin-engine IFR helciopters quite satisfactorily. No bribing of politicians, no profiteering, just people raising money for a service and paying an equitable amount for a suitably safe service at that.
Art of Flight,
That is really not the answer. Rather than construct a new text, below is contents of an email on the subject sent to the Rapporteur of the ICAO HEMS WG in 2009.
In my view the issue is not so much about the ability to fly in IFR (for which the certification criteria exists) but one of addressing the issue of flight in VFR when it is no longer possible (or really difficult) to "...be able to see outside the cockpit, to control the aircraft's attitude, navigate and avoid obstacles and other aircraft".
Jim
That is really not the answer. Rather than construct a new text, below is contents of an email on the subject sent to the Rapporteur of the ICAO HEMS WG in 2009.
In my view the issue is not so much about the ability to fly in IFR (for which the certification criteria exists) but one of addressing the issue of flight in VFR when it is no longer possible (or really difficult) to "...be able to see outside the cockpit, to control the aircraft's attitude, navigate and avoid obstacles and other aircraft".
My main comment would be that problems are mostly associated with reduced visibility and, not necessarily, a descending cloud base. This leads to two additional problems:
1. How is visibility measured in flight (I don’t know the answer); and
2. What if the cloud is descending generally – executing the 180º will not result in a flight back into a clear area.
This is why I emphasized that the decision is never presented to the pilot in clear and unambiguous terms. On the other hand, if the aircraft is well equipped – either with two pilots or with an autopilot (but in any case with some form of augmentation); there is a buffer both in height and in control.
My view has always been that although Parts 27/29 have a clause that states in 2x.141(c):
Although the objective of the rule does state that visual cues must be “sufficient to safely control the helicopter”, we all know that this (subjective judgement) is totally reliant upon the other part of the equation - i.e. the stability of the helicopter. Whilst that stability is addressed by Appendix B to Parts 27/29 for any aircraft that is certificated for flight in IMC, it is not for most singles (and even some twins).
The handing qualities of the helicopter and the usable cue environment are inversely proportionate to each other. As the quality of handling increases, the requirement for visual cues reduces. At the extreme (with an auto-pilot), the only cues that are required, are those which provide for obstacle avoidance (not unimportant but of a secondary order).
This is not a message that is usually well received by regulators, or operators, as it really points to the necessity to address stability in a reduced visual cue environment – particularly at night. The traditional answer to this dilemma is to place a requirement, at night, for twins (knowing that most will come with certification for flight in IMC) - this is the European solution; in addition, in some States (the UK for one), airspace at night is designated IFR; which leads to the (JAR) requirement for an auto-pilot for single-pilot operations.
Night IFR in the UK does not mandate the full set of rules contained in ICAO Annex 2 but instead a quasi-night-VFR regime exists that permits operations below 3,000ft to be conducted much as they are for day VFR.
No simple answers but, if States wish to address the main issues, stability is key; it does not have to be twins, Appendix B to Parts 27/29 can be used for singles.
It is only when the issue of stability has been addressed that EVS or SVS come into play; they address (the secondary issue mentioned above of) obstacle avoidance but can never replace the necessity for good handling qualities.
1. How is visibility measured in flight (I don’t know the answer); and
2. What if the cloud is descending generally – executing the 180º will not result in a flight back into a clear area.
This is why I emphasized that the decision is never presented to the pilot in clear and unambiguous terms. On the other hand, if the aircraft is well equipped – either with two pilots or with an autopilot (but in any case with some form of augmentation); there is a buffer both in height and in control.
My view has always been that although Parts 27/29 have a clause that states in 2x.141(c):
The rotorcraft must: (c) Have any additional characteristics required for night or instrument operations, if certification for those kinds of operation is requested. Requirements for helicopter instrument flight are contained in appendix B.
It is well known that there are no enforced requirements for certification associated with night operations (or operations in a reduced visual cue environment by day). This is not such an issue in those States where aircraft used for night HEMS are twins certificated under Appendix B of Part 27/29, but in the USA where singles with no additional (stability) requirements are used, too much reliance is placed upon FAR 135.207:Sec. 135.207 - VFR: Helicopter surface reference requirements.
No person may operate a helicopter under VFR unless that person has visual surface reference or, at night, visual surface light reference, sufficient to safely control the helicopter
which, in an unlit area, relies upon the use of NVG to meet the visual surface reference requirements.No person may operate a helicopter under VFR unless that person has visual surface reference or, at night, visual surface light reference, sufficient to safely control the helicopter
Although the objective of the rule does state that visual cues must be “sufficient to safely control the helicopter”, we all know that this (subjective judgement) is totally reliant upon the other part of the equation - i.e. the stability of the helicopter. Whilst that stability is addressed by Appendix B to Parts 27/29 for any aircraft that is certificated for flight in IMC, it is not for most singles (and even some twins).
The handing qualities of the helicopter and the usable cue environment are inversely proportionate to each other. As the quality of handling increases, the requirement for visual cues reduces. At the extreme (with an auto-pilot), the only cues that are required, are those which provide for obstacle avoidance (not unimportant but of a secondary order).
This is not a message that is usually well received by regulators, or operators, as it really points to the necessity to address stability in a reduced visual cue environment – particularly at night. The traditional answer to this dilemma is to place a requirement, at night, for twins (knowing that most will come with certification for flight in IMC) - this is the European solution; in addition, in some States (the UK for one), airspace at night is designated IFR; which leads to the (JAR) requirement for an auto-pilot for single-pilot operations.
Night IFR in the UK does not mandate the full set of rules contained in ICAO Annex 2 but instead a quasi-night-VFR regime exists that permits operations below 3,000ft to be conducted much as they are for day VFR.
No simple answers but, if States wish to address the main issues, stability is key; it does not have to be twins, Appendix B to Parts 27/29 can be used for singles.
It is only when the issue of stability has been addressed that EVS or SVS come into play; they address (the secondary issue mentioned above of) obstacle avoidance but can never replace the necessity for good handling qualities.
Last edited by JimL; 4th Jan 2012 at 15:12.
Avoid imitations
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Wandering the FIR and cyberspace often at highly unsociable times
Posts: 14,576
Received 422 Likes
on
222 Posts
Thankyou for posting that, Jim. I was beginning to think earlier that I was a lone voice!
The last but one paragragh is what I've been advocating here but it's difficult when the bullets keep flying about the USA not being able to afford "our" twins and the shooters refuse to read what's actually being written.
The last but one paragragh is what I've been advocating here but it's difficult when the bullets keep flying about the USA not being able to afford "our" twins and the shooters refuse to read what's actually being written.
Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: uk
Posts: 419
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Quite agree Jim, just starting the list for rotorspeeds request. Of course that list could be started at any point including, aircraft equipment, pilot training and qualification, CRM/HF, briefing facilities, regulation and legislation etc....
I for one am grateful to be flying UK police ops in aircraft that are legislated for by the years of hard won arguments for regulation by people such as JimL. Wasn't long ago we in the UK were flying single pilot without stability at night and without any instrument qualifications, of course we still haven't got the later for police ops!
I for one am grateful to be flying UK police ops in aircraft that are legislated for by the years of hard won arguments for regulation by people such as JimL. Wasn't long ago we in the UK were flying single pilot without stability at night and without any instrument qualifications, of course we still haven't got the later for police ops!
JimL's post pretty well sums it up.
The only way I would differ with his input is the priority I would place on the two issues....(as I read it....)his being "stability" over "cues" and I would make it the reverse...."Cues" over "Stability" but the end result is the same. The better one can see the ground and obstacles....the less sophistication one needs.
I use the example of comparing two extremes of weather....one with a stark clearly defined ceiling with excellent visibility beneath the over cast and the opposite where there is very limited visibility with no definition between the cloud base and the surface touching phenomenon (fog, haze, smoke, mist) that obscures visual cues.
I know which one I gladly fly in....and the one I adamantly refuse to fly in. If I can see clearly....if only a few feet above the terrain..I can avoid obstacles and do so comfortably. No autopilot or stability augmentation needed.
If I am struggling to see what is in front of me...even if at only a few feet above the terrain...I am decidedly unhappy. Even if at a "safe" height and I cannot see but a short murky distance....I am not happy. Having a three/four axis autopilot and a second pilot in the cockpit would not alleviate that discomfort.
Visibility is the key to the issue in my view....not cloud height.
Give me a three/four axis auto pilot and send me out in bad vis at night VFR....is not the right answer. Give me that same autopliot and send me out on an established IFR route....IFR and that is the better concept.
Mere Stability is not the answer alone....there has to be a way to be assured o your location, route, and clearance from both Terrain and Obstacles.
The current Achilles Heel to increasing the sophistication of the aircraft is the lack of Helicopter based IFR route structures and approach procedures. The current system is directly aimed at the Airplane market and not Helicopters.
When we get to where we can do point in space IFR approaches, IFR approaches to off airport locations, and have route structures that facilitate that....we are stuck trying to figure out how to operate safely VFR in IMC conditions...as that is where the hiccups occur.
The sticky bit is when in limited visibility...the transition from VMC to IMC can happen very quickly and usually at the exact worse time and place. Throw in darkness and there is even greater chance for such thing to happen.
If one were to be using an aircraft with a three/four axis autopilot...recovering from IIMC should be far more successful as it would only require a bit of button pushing and assuming George cooperates it is then a matter of confessing one's Sin, gaining an IFR clearance, and completing the flight following IFR procedures....ignoring some minor issues like fuel, fuel reserves, traffic de-confliction while climbing to a safe height IMC with no advance notice to ATC, weather reporting/planning and more than a few other issues.
The only way I would differ with his input is the priority I would place on the two issues....(as I read it....)his being "stability" over "cues" and I would make it the reverse...."Cues" over "Stability" but the end result is the same. The better one can see the ground and obstacles....the less sophistication one needs.
I use the example of comparing two extremes of weather....one with a stark clearly defined ceiling with excellent visibility beneath the over cast and the opposite where there is very limited visibility with no definition between the cloud base and the surface touching phenomenon (fog, haze, smoke, mist) that obscures visual cues.
I know which one I gladly fly in....and the one I adamantly refuse to fly in. If I can see clearly....if only a few feet above the terrain..I can avoid obstacles and do so comfortably. No autopilot or stability augmentation needed.
If I am struggling to see what is in front of me...even if at only a few feet above the terrain...I am decidedly unhappy. Even if at a "safe" height and I cannot see but a short murky distance....I am not happy. Having a three/four axis autopilot and a second pilot in the cockpit would not alleviate that discomfort.
Visibility is the key to the issue in my view....not cloud height.
Give me a three/four axis auto pilot and send me out in bad vis at night VFR....is not the right answer. Give me that same autopliot and send me out on an established IFR route....IFR and that is the better concept.
Mere Stability is not the answer alone....there has to be a way to be assured o your location, route, and clearance from both Terrain and Obstacles.
The current Achilles Heel to increasing the sophistication of the aircraft is the lack of Helicopter based IFR route structures and approach procedures. The current system is directly aimed at the Airplane market and not Helicopters.
When we get to where we can do point in space IFR approaches, IFR approaches to off airport locations, and have route structures that facilitate that....we are stuck trying to figure out how to operate safely VFR in IMC conditions...as that is where the hiccups occur.
The sticky bit is when in limited visibility...the transition from VMC to IMC can happen very quickly and usually at the exact worse time and place. Throw in darkness and there is even greater chance for such thing to happen.
If one were to be using an aircraft with a three/four axis autopilot...recovering from IIMC should be far more successful as it would only require a bit of button pushing and assuming George cooperates it is then a matter of confessing one's Sin, gaining an IFR clearance, and completing the flight following IFR procedures....ignoring some minor issues like fuel, fuel reserves, traffic de-confliction while climbing to a safe height IMC with no advance notice to ATC, weather reporting/planning and more than a few other issues.
Join Date: Feb 2001
Location: Europe
Posts: 535
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Come on SASless, how about coming up with a succinct list of what you want then! We've been debating suitable regulations to improve HEMS safety - tell us what you would specify, as I asked before!
Rotorspeed....if you read my last post it should hit you right square between the eyes what I think will improve safety for EMS operations.
There is not a cook book approach to this situation as it is a very complicated situation on any number of levels.
We have had two pilot crewed IFR Multi-engined helicopters crash as well as single engine VFR only aircraft crash. Thus...equipment alone is not the answer.
We have had Rule/Regulation changes....and we still have crashes so that alone is not the answer.
We have had infrastructure changes....and yes...again...we have crashes so that is not the answer all by itself.
I see the cure as being a multi-disciplined approach to the situation.
Add in all the variables of each Operation...location, tasking, climate, and all that and there is just no simple answer as you are asking for.
My personal preference.....and just my personal view for what I would prefer to fly....a twin engined fully IFR equipped two pilot helicopter equipped with all the bells and whistles it could carry to include NVG's, Moving Map, TAWS, CVR, RadAlts, Dual GPS's, ILS, Marker Beacon, Synthetic Night Vision installed on the aircraft, Air Conditioning, Radar, and Stormscope and be limited to VFR only.
Until the FAA can either provide or authorize the creation Helicopter Only off airways IFR route structure and Point in Space IFR approaches with automated weather reporting at each landing site all Ops would be VFR except for using current IFR routings and facilities under IFR.
Now...over to you.....how does one achieve that....fully IFR operations to the degree I propose?
Nick Lappos, while at Sikorsky the first time, did extensive flight testing of those kinds of IFR procedures using an S-76. Those trials proved it works.
How would you improve safety....I gave you my recipe...what's yours?
There is not a cook book approach to this situation as it is a very complicated situation on any number of levels.
We have had two pilot crewed IFR Multi-engined helicopters crash as well as single engine VFR only aircraft crash. Thus...equipment alone is not the answer.
We have had Rule/Regulation changes....and we still have crashes so that alone is not the answer.
We have had infrastructure changes....and yes...again...we have crashes so that is not the answer all by itself.
I see the cure as being a multi-disciplined approach to the situation.
Add in all the variables of each Operation...location, tasking, climate, and all that and there is just no simple answer as you are asking for.
My personal preference.....and just my personal view for what I would prefer to fly....a twin engined fully IFR equipped two pilot helicopter equipped with all the bells and whistles it could carry to include NVG's, Moving Map, TAWS, CVR, RadAlts, Dual GPS's, ILS, Marker Beacon, Synthetic Night Vision installed on the aircraft, Air Conditioning, Radar, and Stormscope and be limited to VFR only.
Until the FAA can either provide or authorize the creation Helicopter Only off airways IFR route structure and Point in Space IFR approaches with automated weather reporting at each landing site all Ops would be VFR except for using current IFR routings and facilities under IFR.
Now...over to you.....how does one achieve that....fully IFR operations to the degree I propose?
Nick Lappos, while at Sikorsky the first time, did extensive flight testing of those kinds of IFR procedures using an S-76. Those trials proved it works.
How would you improve safety....I gave you my recipe...what's yours?
Join Date: Feb 2001
Location: Europe
Posts: 535
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
SASless
To be blunt nothing hits me square between the eyes from your last post. As usual with your posts I find you tend to avoid concise, pertinent responses but ramble on a bit, undoubtedly with a lot of experience and some valid views beneath it all.
The fact is regulations need to be as clear, prescriptive and concise as possible. Training needs to be as well. Time and money is precious, apart from which people get bored trying to understand what they should do from lengthy messages.
I asked you to propose a detailed spec of helicopter you would mandate on a timescale if you were making the decisions at the FAA, in order to provide far safer HEMS at night, at a viable cost. You still have not done this - expressing your personal preference to be for IFR twins with every bell and whistle available and fly VFR only. A pointless comment, frankly!
I started off saying night HEMS ops should be IFR twins. Your position was that VFR singles was OK. So taking on board some research plus US and European comments, my off the cuff spec now for night ops US HEMS would be:
Phase 1, within 1 year:
Single engine providing has a proven failure rate of less than X
3 axis autopilot or two pilots
Radalt
NVGs
IFR approved GPS with moving map
At least 1 pilot instrument rated
Detailed data logging of every flight with reporting for central analysis
Phase 2, within 3 years:
As above but with:
Single engine providing has a proven failure rate of less than Y, (more stringent)
3 axis autopilot with stablisation system
Dual hydraulics
Dual generators
2 x IFR approved GPS
TAWS
CVR
After 3 years of operations the accident and incident data would be reviewed to establish whether there is any justification for moving to twins.
Aircraft spec is JimL's area of expertise, so perhaps he could contribute here.
I suggest someone with more US HEMS experience proposes some criteria for weather, ops and IFR let down procedures etc.
Bear in mind I've only spent 10 minutes on this with no added research, so this very much a starting point - evolutions welcomed!
To be blunt nothing hits me square between the eyes from your last post. As usual with your posts I find you tend to avoid concise, pertinent responses but ramble on a bit, undoubtedly with a lot of experience and some valid views beneath it all.
The fact is regulations need to be as clear, prescriptive and concise as possible. Training needs to be as well. Time and money is precious, apart from which people get bored trying to understand what they should do from lengthy messages.
I asked you to propose a detailed spec of helicopter you would mandate on a timescale if you were making the decisions at the FAA, in order to provide far safer HEMS at night, at a viable cost. You still have not done this - expressing your personal preference to be for IFR twins with every bell and whistle available and fly VFR only. A pointless comment, frankly!
I started off saying night HEMS ops should be IFR twins. Your position was that VFR singles was OK. So taking on board some research plus US and European comments, my off the cuff spec now for night ops US HEMS would be:
Phase 1, within 1 year:
Single engine providing has a proven failure rate of less than X
3 axis autopilot or two pilots
Radalt
NVGs
IFR approved GPS with moving map
At least 1 pilot instrument rated
Detailed data logging of every flight with reporting for central analysis
Phase 2, within 3 years:
As above but with:
Single engine providing has a proven failure rate of less than Y, (more stringent)
3 axis autopilot with stablisation system
Dual hydraulics
Dual generators
2 x IFR approved GPS
TAWS
CVR
After 3 years of operations the accident and incident data would be reviewed to establish whether there is any justification for moving to twins.
Aircraft spec is JimL's area of expertise, so perhaps he could contribute here.
I suggest someone with more US HEMS experience proposes some criteria for weather, ops and IFR let down procedures etc.
Bear in mind I've only spent 10 minutes on this with no added research, so this very much a starting point - evolutions welcomed!