Another Night-HEMS accident in US
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: In the soup
Posts: 9
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Meetings, but what's the stats?
After all the FAA and industry complains about HEMS having a higher standard accident rate than GA, and there's demand to fix the problem... But like sas said, and I have to agree- where are the inspectors? No, we don't like them there- I'm not the main guy at our operation, but pretty near for purposes of responsibility; and I can objectively say that there are times we need to tighten up a bit.
If the FAA is serious, then they need to spend some time with several operators in the highest risk sections- several that operate different ways (with NVG, without, single/dual pilot). And agreed- taking a VFR ride in the day is supposed to evaluate someone who routinely performs at night or under NVGs either overwater or into/out of confined areas? That's something the military types have been doing for years- evaluating people in the most demanding flight environment.
Ask ourselves this- Why is it that USFS determined the need to card pilots for operations, and operating in HEMS requires nothing other than meeting the FARs? I know we dislike oversight- me included, but the implied statement is that by not carding or any other requirements- it's not as difficult or risky.
Just like I've told the guys that have worked for me- it doesn't take anything other than a couple minutes walking onto the hangar floor to see what kind of maintenance is going on and where the problems lay- the key here is being there and finding out for yourself. Spot on- paperwork and auditing is only 1/8th to 1/4 of it.
If the FAA is serious, then they need to spend some time with several operators in the highest risk sections- several that operate different ways (with NVG, without, single/dual pilot). And agreed- taking a VFR ride in the day is supposed to evaluate someone who routinely performs at night or under NVGs either overwater or into/out of confined areas? That's something the military types have been doing for years- evaluating people in the most demanding flight environment.
Ask ourselves this- Why is it that USFS determined the need to card pilots for operations, and operating in HEMS requires nothing other than meeting the FARs? I know we dislike oversight- me included, but the implied statement is that by not carding or any other requirements- it's not as difficult or risky.
Just like I've told the guys that have worked for me- it doesn't take anything other than a couple minutes walking onto the hangar floor to see what kind of maintenance is going on and where the problems lay- the key here is being there and finding out for yourself. Spot on- paperwork and auditing is only 1/8th to 1/4 of it.
Join Date: Oct 2003
Location: Over here
Posts: 1,030
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
USFS carding is a joke. They sent a guy down to the Gulf of Mexico from Boise, ID, to card us. He had never been in or near the model we were flying, and had no idea even how to start it. All he wanted to see was slope landings, which are seldom required on offshore platforms. It was a complete waste of his and our time, but he got a vacation on the Gulf.
EMS pilots are supposed to be trained and checked by the operator. Carding is just a customer requirement, with the government being the customer. We have quite a few washouts in training, more than one would expect from experienced pilots, and we get annual recurrent training, just like everyone else. I do agree that the recurrent should include night checkrides, but that isn't likely to happen. The FAA cannot, by law, prevent or delay flights, so there is no way they can ride along with most operators. They could theoretically require field checkrides, but they have to justify those, again by law, and it's not that easy. If they're not going to ride along, what good is a night inspection? The FAA is doing what they can, and my main complaint is the slow progress of NVG approvals. I want those, but it's going to be a year or two before I see them, at the rate they're approving them.
EMS pilots are supposed to be trained and checked by the operator. Carding is just a customer requirement, with the government being the customer. We have quite a few washouts in training, more than one would expect from experienced pilots, and we get annual recurrent training, just like everyone else. I do agree that the recurrent should include night checkrides, but that isn't likely to happen. The FAA cannot, by law, prevent or delay flights, so there is no way they can ride along with most operators. They could theoretically require field checkrides, but they have to justify those, again by law, and it's not that easy. If they're not going to ride along, what good is a night inspection? The FAA is doing what they can, and my main complaint is the slow progress of NVG approvals. I want those, but it's going to be a year or two before I see them, at the rate they're approving them.
Gomer:
While I agree in your particular instance it may have been a joke,---in the fire world it is not always a joke. Not too many wild fires on oilrigs huh?? I have had to demonstrate the VR standards with a bucket on more than one carding ride.
In theory, the carding system is good, and could "possibly" be applied to the EMS industry. If nothing else--it is a good discussion point.
USFS carding is a joke. They sent a guy down to the Gulf of Mexico from Boise, ID, to card us.
In theory, the carding system is good, and could "possibly" be applied to the EMS industry. If nothing else--it is a good discussion point.
Join Date: Oct 2003
Location: Over here
Posts: 1,030
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
No, not many wildfires on offshore oil rigs, at least none that are fought by helicopter. No buckets, no long lines, no slingloads of any kind, just straight and level to the rigs and back. But we were on government contracts, so we had to be carded, even though the check pilot had never even seen an offshore rig, and had no desire at all to fly over water.
So who is going to apply carding to EMS? The US government isn't a customer or contractor. USFS carding applies only to US government contracts. Nobody else is affected.
Now if the US government wants to take over all air ambulance service, and card the contractors, it might be possible, but that won't happen this year.
So who is going to apply carding to EMS? The US government isn't a customer or contractor. USFS carding applies only to US government contracts. Nobody else is affected.
Now if the US government wants to take over all air ambulance service, and card the contractors, it might be possible, but that won't happen this year.
I suppose it assumes those doing the "carding" or "flight checking" have the experience and background to kniow what they are doing. That I submit is the point at which the FAA meets its Waterloo!
You see lots of Inspectors that are out of the Army....never flown in the commerical world.....or who are green as grass and and are a danger to themselves but can pass an FAA Checkride. There are some very good guys in the FAA but the FAA system does not promote "Helicopter" guys as they do those from the Fixed Wing side of the house. Thus in my view, there are serveral ways the FAA walks on its own Willy.
Add in the bureaucracy and the hurdles it presents and we cannot look to the FAA to be the shining star in the Points of Light out there.
There are consultants working in this field but do you think the Operators are going to call in some outsiders to tell them how they are messing up? Worse yet, as a consultant how do you tell your client that and get invited back again?
You see lots of Inspectors that are out of the Army....never flown in the commerical world.....or who are green as grass and and are a danger to themselves but can pass an FAA Checkride. There are some very good guys in the FAA but the FAA system does not promote "Helicopter" guys as they do those from the Fixed Wing side of the house. Thus in my view, there are serveral ways the FAA walks on its own Willy.
Add in the bureaucracy and the hurdles it presents and we cannot look to the FAA to be the shining star in the Points of Light out there.
There are consultants working in this field but do you think the Operators are going to call in some outsiders to tell them how they are messing up? Worse yet, as a consultant how do you tell your client that and get invited back again?
Gomer:
I agree with your points. My only point is that the "carding model" appears to work for the fire industry. I have NEVER been questioned for turning down flights. The relationship I have with my crew is one of mutual respect. From what you say---you have a good working relationship. The "carding pilots" I have flown with have all been former fire pilots in the industry with vast experience. My last carding ride was conducted by someone with 30 years fire fighting experience who just got hired by the government as a check pilot last year.
I do not claim to know anything about EMS, but maybe the carding "model" would help. How about having some "senior EMS pilots" who are well respected in the industry being "appointed" as "carding pilots". I do not know how it would work--just thinking out loud is all.
So who is going to apply carding to EMS? The US government isn't a customer or contractor. USFS carding applies only to US government contracts.
I do not claim to know anything about EMS, but maybe the carding "model" would help. How about having some "senior EMS pilots" who are well respected in the industry being "appointed" as "carding pilots". I do not know how it would work--just thinking out loud is all.
The USFS has a very stringent Safety and Operations policy. Everyone has the same book, the book clearly lays out procedures, responsibilities and authorities, uses a risk matrix, and safety is priority number one with fire fighting being secondary to that. They do not worry about expense being added to the cost of their doing business. The pilot has the last word after everyone else has signed off on the flight....but usually is involved in the initial planning. That gives him two chances to say no and plenty of oversight to prevent him being put into a bad situation.
That certainly isn't the case with EMS flying as it stands now.
That certainly isn't the case with EMS flying as it stands now.
"Just a pilot"
Gordy-
About 10% of my experience is night unaided. My EMS log varies between 25% and 33% night experience, as usual in the biz it's feast or famine, calls cluster. Night flight is a minority of EMS flight, but in no way exceptional. I'm on the low end of night experience at my program at time of hire, but we had a lot of Army from the cusp of the transition to NVGs.
Which comes to another issue you mention, night checkrides. Perhaps 10% of my training rides since commencing EMS has had ANY night at all. I'd guess that's about to change dramatically as we go to NVGs- fulfilment of that promise was about to expire under statute of limitations. NVGs will make a significant difference in the night accidents purely because we'll be able to see issues in time to DO something about it, be it weather, wires, or whatever.
The issue of pilot error being way more common and dangerous at night won't be resolved by any of the above.
About 10% of my experience is night unaided. My EMS log varies between 25% and 33% night experience, as usual in the biz it's feast or famine, calls cluster. Night flight is a minority of EMS flight, but in no way exceptional. I'm on the low end of night experience at my program at time of hire, but we had a lot of Army from the cusp of the transition to NVGs.
Which comes to another issue you mention, night checkrides. Perhaps 10% of my training rides since commencing EMS has had ANY night at all. I'd guess that's about to change dramatically as we go to NVGs- fulfilment of that promise was about to expire under statute of limitations. NVGs will make a significant difference in the night accidents purely because we'll be able to see issues in time to DO something about it, be it weather, wires, or whatever.
The issue of pilot error being way more common and dangerous at night won't be resolved by any of the above.
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: USA
Age: 58
Posts: 103
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
What that USFS do with EMS or in the Gulf operation. If you need to met PC 1 or 2 take-off and landing requirements it should and will be in the company's procedures anyway. Now I am talking to twin-engine operation. Please explain me how this helping us?
Hostile
Hostile
There are no limits
Join Date: May 2002
Location: Shrewsbury, England.
Age: 66
Posts: 505
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
There is a system of "carding" in UK HEMS. This is carried out by examiners "carded" in turn by the regulator. Flight is by day or night as appropriate to the operation.
Very few HEMS operations in UK are Government fully sponsored or funded.
Trying to justify your HEMS operation on the basis of lives saved is a big mistake. My experience of just 400 missions is that we may have saved a life on 3 occasions. Trying to get a Doctor/Consultant to support that argument is almost impossible.
Perhaps the main issue is:
"There is no life more precious than my own - until I have to pay the bills"
Discuss
Issue 2
"The accident rate will be reduced by technology."
Discuss
Very few HEMS operations in UK are Government fully sponsored or funded.
Trying to justify your HEMS operation on the basis of lives saved is a big mistake. My experience of just 400 missions is that we may have saved a life on 3 occasions. Trying to get a Doctor/Consultant to support that argument is almost impossible.
Perhaps the main issue is:
"There is no life more precious than my own - until I have to pay the bills"
Discuss
Issue 2
"The accident rate will be reduced by technology."
Discuss
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: In the soup
Posts: 9
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Accident rate reduced by technology.
What limits-
Won't discuss point 1, since I don't operate in the HEMS side. I could offer opinion, but it wouldn't be worth much.
Point 2: years of statistical data, and actual hands on experience in older models and glass cockpit also- not in flat safe areas either. 90% where large helicopter catching devices like mountains, antennas, wires, extreme DA and weather, blowing dust landings, etc exist. The technology can and will save your life- IF used correctly. Some guys can fly to 50 AGL on three axis, some to a complete 40ft hover hands-off, but in areas without any navaids, then what options are there without technology? What else would you suggest?
Not that it's a total replacement for things- like I see happening.
And NVGs- what's the ambient light amplification? It's been a while, so someone needs to help me out, but it's well more than a couple thousand times. If I follow your logic, then visual technology isn't important... I'll begin wallpapering my windscreen and chin bubble immedately.
Again, I'd venture three sets of NVGs costs less than that AW.
*There are inherent dangers when operating WITH NVGs, particularly dimishing weather, but there wasn't any visibility problem that night from the report as I recall. Only darkness.
Won't discuss point 1, since I don't operate in the HEMS side. I could offer opinion, but it wouldn't be worth much.
Point 2: years of statistical data, and actual hands on experience in older models and glass cockpit also- not in flat safe areas either. 90% where large helicopter catching devices like mountains, antennas, wires, extreme DA and weather, blowing dust landings, etc exist. The technology can and will save your life- IF used correctly. Some guys can fly to 50 AGL on three axis, some to a complete 40ft hover hands-off, but in areas without any navaids, then what options are there without technology? What else would you suggest?
Not that it's a total replacement for things- like I see happening.
And NVGs- what's the ambient light amplification? It's been a while, so someone needs to help me out, but it's well more than a couple thousand times. If I follow your logic, then visual technology isn't important... I'll begin wallpapering my windscreen and chin bubble immedately.
Again, I'd venture three sets of NVGs costs less than that AW.
*There are inherent dangers when operating WITH NVGs, particularly dimishing weather, but there wasn't any visibility problem that night from the report as I recall. Only darkness.
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: USA
Posts: 336
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
What Limits,
It is not always about just saving a life. A limb saved from amputation, a burn trated early, a premature baby flown to NICU, a stroke reversed in time. These are all good reasons to have HEMS in far flung rural areas where the nearest metro hospital is a three hour ambulance ride away.Such is the quality of life taken for granted by the world today.
Technology certainly assists but has to be applied judiciously. For instance, to run a full fledged, two pilot full IFR certified aircraft in an area where there are no approaches to hospitals in the IFR system would be extravagant. But to run an IFR capable aircraft and pilot for a VFR only program would be reasonable.The trick is to find the happy medium between one and the other without too much impact on the bottom line.
Alt3.
It is not always about just saving a life. A limb saved from amputation, a burn trated early, a premature baby flown to NICU, a stroke reversed in time. These are all good reasons to have HEMS in far flung rural areas where the nearest metro hospital is a three hour ambulance ride away.Such is the quality of life taken for granted by the world today.
Technology certainly assists but has to be applied judiciously. For instance, to run a full fledged, two pilot full IFR certified aircraft in an area where there are no approaches to hospitals in the IFR system would be extravagant. But to run an IFR capable aircraft and pilot for a VFR only program would be reasonable.The trick is to find the happy medium between one and the other without too much impact on the bottom line.
Alt3.
Join Date: Aug 2008
Location: Arkansas
Posts: 32
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
From another EMS pilot
This is an interesting thread.
If I may weigh in.
This crash seems to have been pilot error in operating the autopilot coupled with failure to monitor the instruments to see that the autopilot was keeping the aircraft where the pilot wanted it to. I would say that messing with the radios was the main distraction as she was having trouble reaching the FD on the ground. The crews in the back should be handling that function in my opinion.
Proper use of the RADALT could of prevented this. HTAWS like I have in my aircraft could of prevented it. NVG's are essential in this type of dark terrain flying. She basically states that on this particular flight she is never complying with 135.207. I have violated that in the past. One night my hairs stood up on the back of my kneck a little too high. I no longer do it. I could of crashed like this gal, I was over rough terrain in an unoccupied national forest, it would not of ended so well.
I do this job currently and I love the HTAWS I have. It has wx radar, metars, etc., traffic (relies on ground equip. though so not always available, so we need to go to a true stand alone system like I used in the GOM), But the terrain warning feature on this equipment is the cats meow.
What is the one thing that makes night so much more dangerous than day? This isn't rocket science guys. You can't frickin see. How many more car crashes you think there would be if engineers hadn't invented headlights? Headlights are useless of course at altitude since there is nothing out front to illuminate. So NVG's are our equivilant answer. My company is installing them now and will be 100% compliant on both HTAWS and NVG's and they will become regulatory. Guarantee you that.
My 2 cents in short: Yes this accident could of been prevented with the tech on board. Probably illegal to start with though (135.207). Almost certainly wouldn't of happened with HTAWS and NVG's. But even with all these tools occasionally somebody will still plow one in. But I for one believe it will become much more rare, and I know I will feel and be safer with them.
If I may weigh in.
This crash seems to have been pilot error in operating the autopilot coupled with failure to monitor the instruments to see that the autopilot was keeping the aircraft where the pilot wanted it to. I would say that messing with the radios was the main distraction as she was having trouble reaching the FD on the ground. The crews in the back should be handling that function in my opinion.
Proper use of the RADALT could of prevented this. HTAWS like I have in my aircraft could of prevented it. NVG's are essential in this type of dark terrain flying. She basically states that on this particular flight she is never complying with 135.207. I have violated that in the past. One night my hairs stood up on the back of my kneck a little too high. I no longer do it. I could of crashed like this gal, I was over rough terrain in an unoccupied national forest, it would not of ended so well.
I do this job currently and I love the HTAWS I have. It has wx radar, metars, etc., traffic (relies on ground equip. though so not always available, so we need to go to a true stand alone system like I used in the GOM), But the terrain warning feature on this equipment is the cats meow.
What is the one thing that makes night so much more dangerous than day? This isn't rocket science guys. You can't frickin see. How many more car crashes you think there would be if engineers hadn't invented headlights? Headlights are useless of course at altitude since there is nothing out front to illuminate. So NVG's are our equivilant answer. My company is installing them now and will be 100% compliant on both HTAWS and NVG's and they will become regulatory. Guarantee you that.
My 2 cents in short: Yes this accident could of been prevented with the tech on board. Probably illegal to start with though (135.207). Almost certainly wouldn't of happened with HTAWS and NVG's. But even with all these tools occasionally somebody will still plow one in. But I for one believe it will become much more rare, and I know I will feel and be safer with them.
