Another sad day for EMS
Joined: Apr 2007
Posts: 645
Likes: 0
From: Center of the Universe
The US EMS Industry continues to kill crews the same old boring ways....year after year....
On a related front, TAWS, TAS/TCAS and NEXRAD in-flight wx have become so inexpensive in the last decade that it is unthinkable to me that any commercial operation would fly without these important safety tools. Not as good as two pilots, but very useful.
Joined: Dec 2006
Posts: 12
Likes: 0
From: New Zealand
My thoughts..VFR is VFR, IFR is IFR. Don't mix the two
. NVG's are great but increase the likely hood of pilots pushing weather minimas. Two pilots are good but require larger expensive helos. Pilots that exceed their company authorisations is a recipe for disaster .
. NVG's are great but increase the likely hood of pilots pushing weather minimas. Two pilots are good but require larger expensive helos. Pilots that exceed their company authorisations is a recipe for disaster .
Joined: May 2002
Aviation Qualifications: ATP+Mil
Posts: 18,633
Likes: 1,072
From: Downeast
Tott.....
So very true....but in my aircraft when it came to a "NO" vote....the majority always won....except when it was my assertion of PIC's Veto which we as PIC's all have the right to exercise at any time we deem proper when we think the majority vote to "GO" is wrong. Then, the deciding vote as always reverts to the PIC.
I insist my view is correct as to our folks killing themselves in the same old boring way....until the industry adopts modern technology, simulator training, improved weather forecasting and reporting, mission acceptance procedures and the like....then perhaps I might change my mind.
Remember, it's 2 vs 1 in that cockpit and there's no CVR.
I insist my view is correct as to our folks killing themselves in the same old boring way....until the industry adopts modern technology, simulator training, improved weather forecasting and reporting, mission acceptance procedures and the like....then perhaps I might change my mind.
"Just a pilot"
Joined: May 2001
Posts: 633
Likes: 8
From: Jefferson GA USA
I would have to argue that this position is exceptional- "NVG's are great but increase the likely hood of pilots pushing weather minimas." I'll agree that NVGs are great. They are the single greatest enhancement to safety of night off-airport operations to date, period. That said, if the PICs mindset is to 'push' the safety envelope, that's what will happen in spite of regulation, company policy and available technology. If that attitude puts the PIC in an accident situation it's not an external cause- it's the classic decision chain.
That said, there is a negative aspect possible in allowing technology to weigh too heavily in PIC decision making- if you don't also allow for survivable exit strategies, you can find yourself very, very far beyond existing capability. Enhanced night vision is no exception that 'gotcha'.
That said, there is a negative aspect possible in allowing technology to weigh too heavily in PIC decision making- if you don't also allow for survivable exit strategies, you can find yourself very, very far beyond existing capability. Enhanced night vision is no exception that 'gotcha'.
Joined: Sep 2007
Posts: 186
Likes: 0
From: US
The Real Problem
is that HEMS in the US is, to some extent, definitely devolving.
Money is tight, weather becoming more active, class of helicopter going single engine - which means definitely not two pilots, or IFR capability or the possibilty of recovering to some mode of flight that will carry the helicopter to safety in the event of an engine failure, less possibility of pay increase for crews who have to feed families, provide kid's education costs, etc.
Offshore and fire fighting and corporate and other areas of our industry slowly move forward, while HEMS (despite the tout of those in management that TAWS and Rad Alts and all the other useful bits will save the day) slowly gets taken down by the profit motive.
It sure would be nice to see a CEO of a HEMS operator draw a line in the sand and start going after reimbursement for flights so the proper equipment, personnel, training and support structure can exist to do this job with a modicum of ethic and predictability. At present these companies are looking internally to cut costs (a noble gesture) but that goes ONLY so far, beyond that the money has to come from reimbursement.
I very much admired that Alan Bristow went after his clients for proper reimbursement. In that respect he's the example for others to follow.
Money is tight, weather becoming more active, class of helicopter going single engine - which means definitely not two pilots, or IFR capability or the possibilty of recovering to some mode of flight that will carry the helicopter to safety in the event of an engine failure, less possibility of pay increase for crews who have to feed families, provide kid's education costs, etc.
Offshore and fire fighting and corporate and other areas of our industry slowly move forward, while HEMS (despite the tout of those in management that TAWS and Rad Alts and all the other useful bits will save the day) slowly gets taken down by the profit motive.
It sure would be nice to see a CEO of a HEMS operator draw a line in the sand and start going after reimbursement for flights so the proper equipment, personnel, training and support structure can exist to do this job with a modicum of ethic and predictability. At present these companies are looking internally to cut costs (a noble gesture) but that goes ONLY so far, beyond that the money has to come from reimbursement.
I very much admired that Alan Bristow went after his clients for proper reimbursement. In that respect he's the example for others to follow.
