Rescue helo operators fight NZ CAA
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: New Zealand
Posts: 161
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Rescue helo operators fight NZ CAA
From today's Dominion Post newspaper in Wellington. The singles in question are generally two AS350BA, one AS350B2 & one A119. The twin is a BK117B2 operated VFR.
Recue helicopter operators are fighting an industry crackdown that will ban them flying some patients directly to major hospitals.
The operators have warned the move could potentially cost the health service millions of dollars, put added strain on already struggling ambulance services and delay treatment for patients.
Single-engined aircraft which covers most of the rescue helicopters landing in Wellington are already officially banned from landing in built-up areas unless it is a life or death emergency.
But the Civil Aviation Authority says some operators have been flouting the life or death clause, potentially endangering people living near hospitals. It has held a meeting with rescue helicopter operators, who have been asked to come up with proof they are operating within the law.
In Wellington, operators from Palmerston North, Hastings, New Plymouth and Nelson would be unable to land on the hospital's rooftop pad, with Wellington-based Westpac rescue helicopter the only service that flies a twin-engine craft in the area. Wellington Hospital gets between 50 and 80 flights a week. While at least half are emergency flights, it is believed a large proportion of the rest are routine transfers.
Operators have labelled the move "ridiculous" and say single-engine helicopters are safe. "We wouldn't use the helicopter or the aircraft if it wasn't safe, full stop," said Nelson Marlborough Rescue Helicopter Trust pilot Tim Douglas-Clifford. "It doesn't make much difference to the operator but it makes a big difference to the patient."
It would mean more work for ambulance services, which would be used to pick up patients from airports or approved landing spots. The alternative upgrading to twin-engine craft, which can land in congested areas would cost about $2 million for each helicopter. That pricetag would have to be picked up by the health system and donations.
Civil Aviation rules state single-engine helicopters cannot land in a built-up area in case the engine fails and they injure people on the ground. Any life-threatening case is exempt from the rule.
Helilink chief pilot Alan Deal said the industry had to work with the CAA to solve the problem. "It will have a huge effect on the industry, there's no doubt about that. It will mean that we have to find places to land, like airfields for instance, and that will create a huge ambulance logistics problem."
CAA's rotary wing unit manager, John Fogden, said operators had been using the life-threatening clause when they should not be to land at hospitals.
The CAA called a meeting at Wellington Hospital before Christmas to inform local operators they would need to prove they were following the rules.
Newtown Residents Association vice-president Martin Hanley said noise from helicopters landing at the hospital had been discussed by the association, but it was more important the service continued to help people.
"We'd like them to operate safely because we're underneath them, but we'd also like them to continue saving lives."
Westpac rescue helicopter spokesman Dave Greenberg said he thought CAA had been very reasonable.
"If CAA did nothing and turned a blind eye and then a helicopter crashes near the hospital the first thing anyone would be doing is saying to CAA `why didn't you enforce the rules?'," he said.
The operators have warned the move could potentially cost the health service millions of dollars, put added strain on already struggling ambulance services and delay treatment for patients.
Single-engined aircraft which covers most of the rescue helicopters landing in Wellington are already officially banned from landing in built-up areas unless it is a life or death emergency.
But the Civil Aviation Authority says some operators have been flouting the life or death clause, potentially endangering people living near hospitals. It has held a meeting with rescue helicopter operators, who have been asked to come up with proof they are operating within the law.
In Wellington, operators from Palmerston North, Hastings, New Plymouth and Nelson would be unable to land on the hospital's rooftop pad, with Wellington-based Westpac rescue helicopter the only service that flies a twin-engine craft in the area. Wellington Hospital gets between 50 and 80 flights a week. While at least half are emergency flights, it is believed a large proportion of the rest are routine transfers.
Operators have labelled the move "ridiculous" and say single-engine helicopters are safe. "We wouldn't use the helicopter or the aircraft if it wasn't safe, full stop," said Nelson Marlborough Rescue Helicopter Trust pilot Tim Douglas-Clifford. "It doesn't make much difference to the operator but it makes a big difference to the patient."
It would mean more work for ambulance services, which would be used to pick up patients from airports or approved landing spots. The alternative upgrading to twin-engine craft, which can land in congested areas would cost about $2 million for each helicopter. That pricetag would have to be picked up by the health system and donations.
Civil Aviation rules state single-engine helicopters cannot land in a built-up area in case the engine fails and they injure people on the ground. Any life-threatening case is exempt from the rule.
Helilink chief pilot Alan Deal said the industry had to work with the CAA to solve the problem. "It will have a huge effect on the industry, there's no doubt about that. It will mean that we have to find places to land, like airfields for instance, and that will create a huge ambulance logistics problem."
CAA's rotary wing unit manager, John Fogden, said operators had been using the life-threatening clause when they should not be to land at hospitals.
The CAA called a meeting at Wellington Hospital before Christmas to inform local operators they would need to prove they were following the rules.
Newtown Residents Association vice-president Martin Hanley said noise from helicopters landing at the hospital had been discussed by the association, but it was more important the service continued to help people.
"We'd like them to operate safely because we're underneath them, but we'd also like them to continue saving lives."
Westpac rescue helicopter spokesman Dave Greenberg said he thought CAA had been very reasonable.
"If CAA did nothing and turned a blind eye and then a helicopter crashes near the hospital the first thing anyone would be doing is saying to CAA `why didn't you enforce the rules?'," he said.
Wasn't the Wellington Hospital helipad originally built by the late Peter Button and his son? (For non Kiwi's pilot Peter Button was the force behind the establishment of a rescue service in Wellington many years ago) Who began using it with a Jetranger...
Note: by 'built' I mean the guy hired a concrete mixer and constructed it himself.
From Westpac Rescue History:
"Rescue Helicopter history: 1975
Pioneer helicopter pilot Peter Button started the first rescue helicopter in Wellington. Button set up commercial helicopter company Capital Helicopters in 1975, making it available for emergencies.
Rescue Helicopter history: 1981
Button aimed to provide a dedicated rescue helicopter service for Wellington. In 1981, sponsorship by the Commercial Bank of Australia (CBA) meant Capital Helicopter's Bell 206B could be dedicated to rescues.
With the 1982 merger of CBA and Westpac, it became the Wellington Westpac Rescue Helicopter. It was repainted in the now trademark yellow and red."
Note: by 'built' I mean the guy hired a concrete mixer and constructed it himself.
From Westpac Rescue History:
"Rescue Helicopter history: 1975
Pioneer helicopter pilot Peter Button started the first rescue helicopter in Wellington. Button set up commercial helicopter company Capital Helicopters in 1975, making it available for emergencies.
Rescue Helicopter history: 1981
Button aimed to provide a dedicated rescue helicopter service for Wellington. In 1981, sponsorship by the Commercial Bank of Australia (CBA) meant Capital Helicopter's Bell 206B could be dedicated to rescues.
With the 1982 merger of CBA and Westpac, it became the Wellington Westpac Rescue Helicopter. It was repainted in the now trademark yellow and red."
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: New Zealand
Posts: 161
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Mike. That rings a vague bell. However, the current pad, which has been in use for some years, is on the roof of the main hospital building. A new pad is about to be commissioned a top a new main building. Ironically it is lower than the current pad and on the windward side of it. You will have to come around the old building, or at least approach from the side of it, to get on to the new pad in a Northerly.
Roam. Indeed. It does seem more than a little ironic to me that for all Hugh Jone's huffing and puffing over the years about twin engine ops over built up areas; he provides nothing more than a VFR service to the Life Flight Trust and allows the A119 to operate in and out of there.
My understanding is that the current regs don't require Class 1, but you have to be able to get yourself out of trouble if you lose an engine.
What do you think of the new pad?
TK
Roam. Indeed. It does seem more than a little ironic to me that for all Hugh Jone's huffing and puffing over the years about twin engine ops over built up areas; he provides nothing more than a VFR service to the Life Flight Trust and allows the A119 to operate in and out of there.
My understanding is that the current regs don't require Class 1, but you have to be able to get yourself out of trouble if you lose an engine.
What do you think of the new pad?
TK
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Stn Hem
Posts: 7
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
What Rule???
Im Guessing this is the rule the CAA are trying to enforce;
(c) Before using any place as a heliport, a person operating a helicoptershall ensure that—
(1) the heliport is clear of all persons, animals, vehicles or other
obstructions during the hover, touchdown or lift-off other than
persons and vehicles essential to the operation; and
(2) the selected approach and take off paths are such that, if the
helicopter is not a performance-Class 1 helicopter, an
autorotative landing can be conducted without any undue risk to
any person on the ground;
CAR Part 139.309 Use of heliports
(a) Except for a person operating a helicopter on an external load
operation, no person operating a helicopter shall use any place within a populous area as a heliport unless the heliport has physical characteristics, obstacle limitation surfaces and visual aids commensurate with the characteristics of the helicopter being operated and the ambient light
operation, no person operating a helicopter shall use any place within a populous area as a heliport unless the heliport has physical characteristics, obstacle limitation surfaces and visual aids commensurate with the characteristics of the helicopter being operated and the ambient light
conditions during operations, and the person has complied with
paragraph (c).(c) Before using any place as a heliport, a person operating a helicoptershall ensure that—
(1) the heliport is clear of all persons, animals, vehicles or other
obstructions during the hover, touchdown or lift-off other than
persons and vehicles essential to the operation; and
(2) the selected approach and take off paths are such that, if the
helicopter is not a performance-Class 1 helicopter, an
autorotative landing can be conducted without any undue risk to
any person on the ground;
CAR Part 1; Heliport
means any defined area of land or water, and any defined area on a structure, intended or designed to be used either wholly or partly for the landing, departure, and surface movement of helicopters:
Would enforcement of this rule also apply to any city helipad (other than ones that approach over water) - probably including all hospital helipads?
Is BK117 performance Class 1 ensured at all times when landing at their inner city helipads (possibly the S76's in Northland are!!)?
In my feable opinion this is a big can of worms that the CAA will need to follow up all over the country!!!!
Would enforcement of this rule also apply to any city helipad (other than ones that approach over water) - probably including all hospital helipads?
Is BK117 performance Class 1 ensured at all times when landing at their inner city helipads (possibly the S76's in Northland are!!)?
In my feable opinion this is a big can of worms that the CAA will need to follow up all over the country!!!!
The CAA called a meeting at Wellington Hospital before Christmas to inform local operators they would need to prove they were following the rules.
I have a better idea.....let the CAA prove the operators were violating the rules!
Let the lazy Sod's get off their arses and do something for a change!
It is pretty damn arrogant to make an accusation without any documentation or investigation and then demand the operators to devote time, resources, and money to providing the CAA with the information they should be digging up on their own damn dime.
Let the CAA document their case then come forth with their demand for a response and proposed corrective action by the Industry and individual operators.
I suggest the CAA has its cart before the Horse on this one.
How many single-engined helicopters have crashed while using these heliports?
Have there been any persons on the ground injured or killed?
How many lives have been saved by these operations?
Are you willing to throw the baby out with the bath water here?
Lets carry it to the extreme....doesn't the use of non-class one helicopters during winching or short-hauling rescues endanger the victim and thus should not those rescues not be conducted by those means? After all....a rescue does not always mean life or death situations that could be handled by other means despite being more difficult and prolonged?
JimL,
Does it matter if it is local NZ CAA rules, JAR's, EASA, or a city ordinance that is being used as a basis for this action? The whole attitude of looking for reasons "not to do" something is what gets up people's noses.
What happened to the concept of looking for ways to facilitate operations and perhaps the industry in concert with the bureaucracy examining the current regulations to determine which ones are in need of modification or outright elimination in order to foster improved service, eliminate unnecessary costs and admin burden while at the same time keeping the public safety in mind.
Recall this action stems from an administrative decision and not as a result of an accident, injury, or death.
I would suggest the thread about Licensed/un-licensed airfields serve to point out the sad state the current system has gotten to.
Last edited by SASless; 25th Jan 2009 at 14:08.
Join Date: Dec 2000
Location: Desert Rat
Age: 53
Posts: 675
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
To Jim L
Well, if you fail to see a connection then get this...JAA is quite determined to get rid of single engine helicopters and twins that don't meet their "criteria". The problem in NZ smells a lot like JAR **** to me. If the JAA would have the power they would kick all the single Squirrels, Lamas, etc... into the toilet, and ruin businesses, because twins are "oh so safe". You might not agree with my view, but in my opinion aviation does not get safer but therefore more idiotic.
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: NZ
Posts: 16
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Some operator in NZ may correct me but:
In NZ there has never been an Arriel engine failure (powers the AS350) which are the majority of the EMS machines. This includes some world record single engine flights over water.
There has only been one EMS accident - to a BK117 (twin)
Not all BK 117's are Class 1
In NZ there has never been an Arriel engine failure (powers the AS350) which are the majority of the EMS machines. This includes some world record single engine flights over water.
There has only been one EMS accident - to a BK117 (twin)
Not all BK 117's are Class 1
Thanks for that alouette.
I had two reasons for making my observation: (1) the language used in the CARs does not reflect that used in JARs - i.e. there is no such thing as a Performance Class 1 helicopter - operations are performed in PC1, 2 or 3; and (2) in Europe there is no central regulation of heliports - they are still within the remit of the States.
For the capability of the BK117, it can be operated in all three classes.
Perhaps you have missed the point that these regulations (and all regulations issued by a Signatory State) have to show compliance with ICAO Annex 14 (heliports) and Annex 6 (operations). Your anger might therefore better be directed at ICAO - from whose SARPs all of these regulations are derived.
I would question SASless' contention that the Authority be required to prove that operations are compliant. It is for the operator to establish an operating regime that is both safe and compliant. To have it any other way would be to require the Authority to (directly) manage the operation.
Clearly, the NZ CAA are not qualified to do this, nor do they have the staff or the budget.
Jim
I had two reasons for making my observation: (1) the language used in the CARs does not reflect that used in JARs - i.e. there is no such thing as a Performance Class 1 helicopter - operations are performed in PC1, 2 or 3; and (2) in Europe there is no central regulation of heliports - they are still within the remit of the States.
For the capability of the BK117, it can be operated in all three classes.
Perhaps you have missed the point that these regulations (and all regulations issued by a Signatory State) have to show compliance with ICAO Annex 14 (heliports) and Annex 6 (operations). Your anger might therefore better be directed at ICAO - from whose SARPs all of these regulations are derived.
I would question SASless' contention that the Authority be required to prove that operations are compliant. It is for the operator to establish an operating regime that is both safe and compliant. To have it any other way would be to require the Authority to (directly) manage the operation.
Clearly, the NZ CAA are not qualified to do this, nor do they have the staff or the budget.
Jim
Join Date: Dec 2000
Location: Desert Rat
Age: 53
Posts: 675
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Ironically, and I have been through JAA exams...these exams aviation law wise are all based on ICAO annexes, and JAA stepped up and just changed the labels. I don't like the JAA or its JARs and its equivalent bs but I have to live with it.
However, this might not be related to NZ CARs but then again the odd determination to put twins into business for any kind does have a JAR influence.
Another question; has the ambulance business been unsafely operating in NZ?
However, this might not be related to NZ CARs but then again the odd determination to put twins into business for any kind does have a JAR influence.
Another question; has the ambulance business been unsafely operating in NZ?
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: New Zealand
Posts: 161
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Alouette: My understanding is that NZ CAA has no issue with singles being used for rescue or inter-hospital transfer work. There are a number of squirrels and a Koala being used for both. What they do have an issue with is this particular pad. Wellington Hospital is in a built up area. It is surrounded on three sides by houses or businesses and the remaining side by rising ground covered in pine trees which has houses on the other side of it. The wind is usually northerly or southerly. Approach and departure for both of these winds is over densely populated or built up streets.
The rules for operating in and out of such pads have remained the same for some time. CAA believes the life or death element of the rules is being exploited by some just because they operate rescue helicopters.
SAS: For once I have some sympathy for our CAA!!! There are have been queries raised with the departmnet about use of this pad and the Director of CAA has said the rules must be obeyed.
There have been 3 or 4 incidents with rescue helicopters in NZ. As well as the BK crash up on the Rimutaka Ranges, there was a BO-105 in Wellington which had a rotor strike leaving a park (or some such) where it had been on static. A squirrel fell into Whangarei Harbour after the line it had on the hook got caught on a fence as it left a park as part on a training exercise.
The rules for operating in and out of such pads have remained the same for some time. CAA believes the life or death element of the rules is being exploited by some just because they operate rescue helicopters.
SAS: For once I have some sympathy for our CAA!!! There are have been queries raised with the departmnet about use of this pad and the Director of CAA has said the rules must be obeyed.
There have been 3 or 4 incidents with rescue helicopters in NZ. As well as the BK crash up on the Rimutaka Ranges, there was a BO-105 in Wellington which had a rotor strike leaving a park (or some such) where it had been on static. A squirrel fell into Whangarei Harbour after the line it had on the hook got caught on a fence as it left a park as part on a training exercise.
JimL,
Show me a BK-117 that can be operated at Class One performance with the EMS kit installed, two medical team, one patient, and one pilot, with mission fuel.....can you name one?
I have flown the BK....and when flown with just two pilots and the ems kit....in cold temps we got Class One performance at times....but not in the Summer and never equipped for the mission with the full crew and fuel aboard.
Add in a Neo-Nate Isolator and the extra people that mission required....and never did we have Class One performance.
I for sure agree with your comment about the CAA's not being able to operate a helicopter business......the UK CAA does quite well in meeting it's budget and profit requirement as it has no competition to defend its rates and charges against. In the real world of business the CAA would be bankrupt and out of business with any competition.
Te,
My apologies to the NZ CAA then.....I am used to the UK CAA and the draconian mindset that organization has when it comes to service, costs, and penchant for burdensome rules. Perhaps tarring all "CAA's" with the same brush is unfair.
Show me a BK-117 that can be operated at Class One performance with the EMS kit installed, two medical team, one patient, and one pilot, with mission fuel.....can you name one?
I have flown the BK....and when flown with just two pilots and the ems kit....in cold temps we got Class One performance at times....but not in the Summer and never equipped for the mission with the full crew and fuel aboard.
Add in a Neo-Nate Isolator and the extra people that mission required....and never did we have Class One performance.
I for sure agree with your comment about the CAA's not being able to operate a helicopter business......the UK CAA does quite well in meeting it's budget and profit requirement as it has no competition to defend its rates and charges against. In the real world of business the CAA would be bankrupt and out of business with any competition.
Te,
My apologies to the NZ CAA then.....I am used to the UK CAA and the draconian mindset that organization has when it comes to service, costs, and penchant for burdensome rules. Perhaps tarring all "CAA's" with the same brush is unfair.
In a European HEMS configuration, the EC 145 can perform CAT A helipad procedures up to 7000ft at +15C (configuration and data provided in Attachment A of the referenced TGL).
http://www.jaa.nl/secured/Operations/Public%20Documents/TGLs/AGM%20S4%20Ops%20TGL%2043%20HEMS%20Mountain%20Ops%20Feb%2008 %20Print.pdf
Jim
http://www.jaa.nl/secured/Operations/Public%20Documents/TGLs/AGM%20S4%20Ops%20TGL%2043%20HEMS%20Mountain%20Ops%20Feb%2008 %20Print.pdf
Jim
JimL,
I know the EC-145 is very similar to the BK but show me the BK data will you....as your statement cited the BK not the EC-145.
Just as the CAA would expect relevent data to be presented.....so do I.
Just which model of the BK do you refer to....as there is a whale of a difference between the various models.
I would suggest the "A" series BK's are quite different than the "B" series in performance.
The blanket statement that "BK's can be operated Class One" is misleading and not completely accurate.
As I read your reference I also noted the Base had to be a surveyed site and a statement was made where obstacles could present a problem for takeoffs and landings for all of the aircraft listed in the document.
The crewing shown in the document and probably the equipment installed in the aircraft is much different than the standard BK-117 used in EMS operations in the USA.
Perhaps some of the American based EMS guys can give us some weight information for their operations and we can compare it to those cited in the study you reference.
I know the EC-145 is very similar to the BK but show me the BK data will you....as your statement cited the BK not the EC-145.
Just as the CAA would expect relevent data to be presented.....so do I.
Just which model of the BK do you refer to....as there is a whale of a difference between the various models.
I would suggest the "A" series BK's are quite different than the "B" series in performance.
The blanket statement that "BK's can be operated Class One" is misleading and not completely accurate.
Category A Helipad procedure tops out at 7,000ft at 15ºC; this could be an issue at that altitude if the HEMS Operating Base does not have adequate space without surrounding obstacles
The crewing shown in the document and probably the equipment installed in the aircraft is much different than the standard BK-117 used in EMS operations in the USA.
Perhaps some of the American based EMS guys can give us some weight information for their operations and we can compare it to those cited in the study you reference.
Last edited by SASless; 26th Jan 2009 at 13:34.
SASless,
The EC145 is a BK117 (and the only one for which I have data);
My introduction of the Cat A Helipad procedure (which is the most limiting) at 7000ft and 15C was to show that it was not gasping for performance (at HEMS operating masses) at sea level in Wellington.
The 'rider' in the text applies to any PC1 procedure - the site must have been 'surveyed' before it be flown because obstacle clearance has to be assured. How else could it be done?
If you check the figures in the table in the attachment, you will see that it has quite a lot to capacity to spare in Wellington; that can be taken in extra HEMS payload (HEMS equipment, the three crew members and casualty are included - as is 45mins fuel and reserves). The payload coming off Wellington is that shown; take-off for Wellington can be plus the fuel burn. I can't imagine that the payload off Wellington will include the casualty (another 98kg)! (Cat A landing masses can be greater than landing masses - I am not sure if this is correct for the BK117/EC145.)
For alouette's benefit; JARs would permit the HEMS aircraft to operate in PC2 if the hospital site was a particularly difficult one with respect to local obstacles, by permitting the Public Interest Site alleviation.
It would appear from a perusal of the NZ CARs that, apart from this one restriction, there are no performance requirements - only the necessity to apply the Rules of The Air (ICAO Annex 2); in that respect there is no correlation with JARs and it therefore falls short of ICAO Annex 6 compliance.
Jim
The EC145 is a BK117 (and the only one for which I have data);
My introduction of the Cat A Helipad procedure (which is the most limiting) at 7000ft and 15C was to show that it was not gasping for performance (at HEMS operating masses) at sea level in Wellington.
The 'rider' in the text applies to any PC1 procedure - the site must have been 'surveyed' before it be flown because obstacle clearance has to be assured. How else could it be done?
If you check the figures in the table in the attachment, you will see that it has quite a lot to capacity to spare in Wellington; that can be taken in extra HEMS payload (HEMS equipment, the three crew members and casualty are included - as is 45mins fuel and reserves). The payload coming off Wellington is that shown; take-off for Wellington can be plus the fuel burn. I can't imagine that the payload off Wellington will include the casualty (another 98kg)! (Cat A landing masses can be greater than landing masses - I am not sure if this is correct for the BK117/EC145.)
For alouette's benefit; JARs would permit the HEMS aircraft to operate in PC2 if the hospital site was a particularly difficult one with respect to local obstacles, by permitting the Public Interest Site alleviation.
It would appear from a perusal of the NZ CARs that, apart from this one restriction, there are no performance requirements - only the necessity to apply the Rules of The Air (ICAO Annex 2); in that respect there is no correlation with JARs and it therefore falls short of ICAO Annex 6 compliance.
Jim
JimL,
How do these restrictions apply to HEMS operations to downtown London?
I am thinking of photos of aircraft parked in intersections or streets.
As all HEMS flights do not involve life or death situations....is there a problem with doing those operations that do not involve life threatening injuries?
How do these restrictions apply to HEMS operations to downtown London?
I am thinking of photos of aircraft parked in intersections or streets.
As all HEMS flights do not involve life or death situations....is there a problem with doing those operations that do not involve life threatening injuries?
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: foot of a mountain
Posts: 293
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
In our research done for 5500ft, 35 degrees, 2 hrs endurance and 3 crew at 80kg's each with the ALS kit installed and then of course dependant on how long you fly to get to the patient(might be 15 min so you have to include it) an extra 80kgs, the EC145 and A109 Grand barely made Cat A without reaching the 2 hours endurance requirement(135 and a few others way to fuel limited). The Grand did the best with 1.5 hrs max and the 145 1.3 hrs max.
If you want to complicate it further. Neither machine made it in IFR configuration!!!!! no matter the fuel onboard.
350B3, EC130, 407 and 119 although it's oGE graph makes it dodgy(but no more than the 145/109) made the criteria without compromise. The 130 has the most to spare due to the extra 180kg MAUW over the 350 and we operate her there for the last 2 years and she does it with a smile(no limits recorded). The 130 is fitted with TCAD, EGPWS, Stormscope, EX500, ALS system and even a cd/I-pod player.
4 accidents in 10 days again recently- 3 twins? Does the stats support the CAA's worrldwide obsession with twins?
If you want to complicate it further. Neither machine made it in IFR configuration!!!!!
no matter the fuel onboard. 350B3, EC130, 407 and 119 although it's oGE graph makes it dodgy(but no more than the 145/109) made the criteria without compromise. The 130 has the most to spare due to the extra 180kg MAUW over the 350 and we operate her there for the last 2 years and she does it with a smile(no limits recorded). The 130 is fitted with TCAD, EGPWS, Stormscope, EX500, ALS system and even a cd/I-pod player.
4 accidents in 10 days again recently- 3 twins? Does the stats support the CAA's worrldwide obsession with twins?
SASless (all of this is contained in the paper you have already found),
Those pictures are all of the accident scene - known in JARs as the HEMS Operating Site; there are basically few restrictions at this site and PC2 with Exposure is permitted (or PC3 with exposure outside a Congested Hostile Environment).
What is being discussed as far as Wellington is concerned is a Hospital in a Congested Hostile Environment - this still attracts alleviations but only on the basis of exceptional problems (a pre-existing site (before 2002) which is too small or which has difficult obstacles).
The final type of site is the HEMS Operating Base - for which no alleviations (beyond those permitted to all operations) are permitted.
The risk profile of these three types of sites is based upon frequency of use - permitted risk is inversely proportional to the amount of use.
Unless the sortie is on the basis of "facilitating emergency assistance where immediate and rapid transportation is essential" it is not a HEMS Flight and no HEMS alleviations are possible.
Victor papa, I do not speak for the CAA but I was not aware that they had a 'worldwide obsession with twins'; if what you have described is required for South Africa then who is to argue. However, as you are aware from our previous discussions, for Europe the size of the aircraft is driven by the operating and medical requirements. We are also seeing a trend towards larger cabins for operators in the US. In additional, with the larger aircraft comes the ability to operate IFR - if required.
Jim
Those pictures are all of the accident scene - known in JARs as the HEMS Operating Site; there are basically few restrictions at this site and PC2 with Exposure is permitted (or PC3 with exposure outside a Congested Hostile Environment).
What is being discussed as far as Wellington is concerned is a Hospital in a Congested Hostile Environment - this still attracts alleviations but only on the basis of exceptional problems (a pre-existing site (before 2002) which is too small or which has difficult obstacles).
The final type of site is the HEMS Operating Base - for which no alleviations (beyond those permitted to all operations) are permitted.
The risk profile of these three types of sites is based upon frequency of use - permitted risk is inversely proportional to the amount of use.
Unless the sortie is on the basis of "facilitating emergency assistance where immediate and rapid transportation is essential" it is not a HEMS Flight and no HEMS alleviations are possible.
Victor papa, I do not speak for the CAA but I was not aware that they had a 'worldwide obsession with twins'; if what you have described is required for South Africa then who is to argue. However, as you are aware from our previous discussions, for Europe the size of the aircraft is driven by the operating and medical requirements. We are also seeing a trend towards larger cabins for operators in the US. In additional, with the larger aircraft comes the ability to operate IFR - if required.
Jim