Helicopter Crash Kills 3, Puts Transplant on Hold
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: USA
Posts: 278
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
EN48:
Without commenting on the wisdom or not of flying night VFR in single engine, the age of the ship is irrelevant. On a 1976 ship, every rotating component will have been changed / overhauled many times, and the core airframe stripped, inspected, repaired, painted several times over as well.
Here is a pic of the ill-fated 206. Terribly sad for all involved.
Crash pix here: Mayo Clinic Hospital Crash - Slideshow Gallery | Jacksonville, FL - St. Augustine, FL - Brunswick, GA | Firstcoastnews.com
A 1976 helicopter no matter the type is an antique. Why the Mayo Clinic, possibly the most prestigious medical institution on the planet, is flying personnel around is an old beater like this is a puzzle.
Here is a pic of the ill-fated 206. Terribly sad for all involved.
Crash pix here: Mayo Clinic Hospital Crash - Slideshow Gallery | Jacksonville, FL - St. Augustine, FL - Brunswick, GA | Firstcoastnews.com
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: USA
Posts: 278
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Hoke Smith, RIP
Story about the experienced pilot, Hoke Smith:
Hoke Smith, pilot of crashed helicopter, lived and breathed aviation | jacksonville.com
Smith started flying planes when he was a teenager, and the Army taught him how to fly helicopters in the early 1960s. He then flew them into combat in Vietnam, where he was awarded the Distinguished Flying Cross, the Bronze Star and Purple Heart, the company website says.
And Shell is different from Mom and Pop operations because of their outstanding safety record. What an arrogant comment by SM.
Sincere condolences to all at SKJets
Sincere condolences to all at SKJets
Join Date: May 2000
Location: Phuket
Posts: 297
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Does anyone really think SM is really a member of Shell Management? Think about it, would a real member of management have his position posted here? I don't think so. I think SM is just a self appointment mouthpiece for someone, maybe not even a pilot judging from a may of his posts.
He feeds off of our reactions, I think he should just be ignored. He will go away.
He feeds off of our reactions, I think he should just be ignored. He will go away.
Join Date: Aug 2011
Location: Ventura Ca U.S.A.
Posts: 222
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
CFIT in the early morning. Most engine failure caused crashes into trees don't burn. Nothing wrong flying old helicopters as long as the maintenance is kept up. RIP to the bunch. If you don't like the risks -Go home.
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: US/S.E. Asia
Posts: 88
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Damn terrible tragedy.. no matter what time of the year.
RIP to all of them.
Metar gives the impression the weather may have been a bit iffy at the approximate time of the accident, for VFR.
Twin engine helicopters still have one one tranny, one tail-boom, one tail-rotor, etc. But the twin versus single debate will persist.
RIP to all of them.
Metar gives the impression the weather may have been a bit iffy at the approximate time of the accident, for VFR.
Twin engine helicopters still have one one tranny, one tail-boom, one tail-rotor, etc. But the twin versus single debate will persist.
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: Stagnation Point
Posts: 13
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I am not going to speculate on this particular accident but wait for the report, in the meantime obviously it is a sad loss for all of those involved personally.
As to the single/twin one pilot or two debates all I will say is that it is possible to fly singles at night with one pilot perfectly safely. It has been done the world over for years, it does however have an increased risk of incidents due to certain factors. As time and technology move on we reassess our risks and sometimes change how we do things.
It was mentioned here that British police operate single pilot at night in twins and not IFR. Some are in fact IFR but most are not, but ..............the aircraft are equipped for IFR.
Spatial disorientation has killed many at night and I have lost friends who drove twins in to the deck from black hole syndrome without ever entering a cloud. The difference a newer more modern airframe could have over an aged jet-ranger is the full auto pilot suite. Once you become disorientated or inadvertently enter cloud you engage the autopilot and let the computers keep you alive while you manage a recovery to a suitable airfield with a coupled ILS if required. Training to do this is carried out regularly.
It will not save you in every situation and in fact humans being what we are some will push the limits using the kit they are not licensed to and get themselves into trouble not out of it. There is no one solution to all problems and always exceptions to the rule. We however need to try as hard as we can to prevent the major reasons not use the exceptions and previous practices to justify continued risky operations.
I fly a 1969 "A" conversion jet-ranger which has had nearly every part rebuilt or replaced over the years and it is still a beautiful smooth craft to fly. I have flown it at night in years gone by but am older and wiser now and would not do so again. I also fly a slightly newer jet-ranger with basic autopilot. I would prefer to fly this at night as the automation should I become spatially lost could save my life. It is still single pilot single engine but an improvement over the older cab. I can also fly a fully IFR certified 135 with two engines, again given the choice I would prefer to travel in this over the other two. It offers me the autopilot as the newer jet-ranger but now with the added ability to fly coupled approaches if I am really in the brown stuff. Added to this it has the redundancy of two engines.
Given the choice business will try to cut costs and there is a balance to be found as in the real world budgets are not limitless. We as the pilots need to try and make our employers and passengers aware of the risks and benefits of certain operational practices so that an acceptable balance can be found. This is not an easy task.
As the saying goes, if you think safety is expensive you should try an accident!!
As to the single/twin one pilot or two debates all I will say is that it is possible to fly singles at night with one pilot perfectly safely. It has been done the world over for years, it does however have an increased risk of incidents due to certain factors. As time and technology move on we reassess our risks and sometimes change how we do things.
It was mentioned here that British police operate single pilot at night in twins and not IFR. Some are in fact IFR but most are not, but ..............the aircraft are equipped for IFR.
Spatial disorientation has killed many at night and I have lost friends who drove twins in to the deck from black hole syndrome without ever entering a cloud. The difference a newer more modern airframe could have over an aged jet-ranger is the full auto pilot suite. Once you become disorientated or inadvertently enter cloud you engage the autopilot and let the computers keep you alive while you manage a recovery to a suitable airfield with a coupled ILS if required. Training to do this is carried out regularly.
It will not save you in every situation and in fact humans being what we are some will push the limits using the kit they are not licensed to and get themselves into trouble not out of it. There is no one solution to all problems and always exceptions to the rule. We however need to try as hard as we can to prevent the major reasons not use the exceptions and previous practices to justify continued risky operations.
I fly a 1969 "A" conversion jet-ranger which has had nearly every part rebuilt or replaced over the years and it is still a beautiful smooth craft to fly. I have flown it at night in years gone by but am older and wiser now and would not do so again. I also fly a slightly newer jet-ranger with basic autopilot. I would prefer to fly this at night as the automation should I become spatially lost could save my life. It is still single pilot single engine but an improvement over the older cab. I can also fly a fully IFR certified 135 with two engines, again given the choice I would prefer to travel in this over the other two. It offers me the autopilot as the newer jet-ranger but now with the added ability to fly coupled approaches if I am really in the brown stuff. Added to this it has the redundancy of two engines.
Given the choice business will try to cut costs and there is a balance to be found as in the real world budgets are not limitless. We as the pilots need to try and make our employers and passengers aware of the risks and benefits of certain operational practices so that an acceptable balance can be found. This is not an easy task.
As the saying goes, if you think safety is expensive you should try an accident!!
Join Date: Feb 2010
Location: 'Stralia
Age: 58
Posts: 227
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
As a person largely unqualified to comment I will only say that that anyone who gets out of bed to fly to somebody's rescue, directly or indirectly, is a hero in my book.
I do note that the pilot also had an A109 at his disposal. I guess the man had his reasons and we don't know where his aircraft were positioned. And I too feel saddened by the loss of the pax. That is the tragedy, as they were as always downstream of the decision making process, however good and optimistic the motive.
And in time we may learn, as I hope to, from this episode.
I do note that the pilot also had an A109 at his disposal. I guess the man had his reasons and we don't know where his aircraft were positioned. And I too feel saddened by the loss of the pax. That is the tragedy, as they were as always downstream of the decision making process, however good and optimistic the motive.
And in time we may learn, as I hope to, from this episode.
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: UK
Posts: 281
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
And in time we may learn, as I hope to, from this episode.
Shawn Coyle makes a very valid point regarding "night VFR", with which I agree totally. There have been some unqualified comments regarding use of twin engine helicopters for this type of mission by those that obviously don't know any better.
Having flown both a B206 at night, and a modern A/P equipped fully IFR certified twin at night I know for sure in my mind which aircraft is most suited to this type of mission. (Assuming the pilot holds a valid IR and is current on instruments of course) Also I believe that this type of flight can be safely carried out by a single pilot (in an IFR twin) if so qualified, however 2 pilots would add an extra level of safety.
I mean no disrespect to the pilot involved who by all accounts was extremely experienced, but there can be NO DOUBT that to undertake this kind of mission, in a B206, single pilot at night, in poor weather was extremely high risk, and experience alone does not make up for having the odds stacked against you.
My condolences to all involved.
BC.
"Just a pilot"
I have to respectfully disagree with Mr Coyle. Night VFR is can be accomplished very nearly as safely as day VFR if one uses appropriate and different flight planning criteria and cues for change of plan. In that process, you have to respect the fact that homo sapiens unaided night vision is less acute and works somewhat differently than our more typical day operation. Maintaining surface reference over areas with minimal cultural lighting can be done with adequate natural light. Personally, I'm always ready to divert around such areas and plan to do so unless everything is prefect for the proposed op.
The largest source of risk in night VFR is the same as any flight operation- pilot error, and that's pretty much true single or twin, IFR or VFR, day or night. One very important difference is that down is a much more dangerous direction at night (lest the ground smite thee unto extinction, Amen), the safe response is almost always UP when issues arise. If that's not a desirable, comfortable option for whatever reason: ceilings, fuel, ice, IFR ability, then one has to be ready to abort (much harder with visual limitations) or not go at all and decline in spite of "mission pressures".
I don't know the pilot or what happened in this event. But I don't see the basic flight profile as necessarily significantly more hazardous than that of the typical helicopter flight.
The largest source of risk in night VFR is the same as any flight operation- pilot error, and that's pretty much true single or twin, IFR or VFR, day or night. One very important difference is that down is a much more dangerous direction at night (lest the ground smite thee unto extinction, Amen), the safe response is almost always UP when issues arise. If that's not a desirable, comfortable option for whatever reason: ceilings, fuel, ice, IFR ability, then one has to be ready to abort (much harder with visual limitations) or not go at all and decline in spite of "mission pressures".
I don't know the pilot or what happened in this event. But I don't see the basic flight profile as necessarily significantly more hazardous than that of the typical helicopter flight.
Devil 49 and Shawn Coyle each make valid points but I would have to side with 49 as he is in this business and does these flights frequently. Over the past few years he has made very insightful posts on this topic.
That being said....at about this point in our discussions on this topic over the years...usually following a tragedy such as this one...I post the Federal Air Regulation that pertains to Night VFR flight by Part 135 Air Taxi Operators.
I shall do so again and understand folks....I am the one to high light the words that are in bold print. Unfortunately the FAA does not do so when printing the documents that hold the following information.
I got to making Night VFR flights into IFR flights...."I Follow Roads"...well light roads...with lots of automobile traffic (thus lots of lights)...it might take a few minutes longer....but it sure made it easier!
Now...put yourself in a situation where you have 10SM vis with a 600-1000 foot variable ceiliing and a One Degree Temp/Dew Point spread....and a very rural sparsely lit terrain. Add in the issue of the flight being very "Time Sensitive" and probably a no notice request for a flight.
Add in the fact the aircraft was a strictly VFR machine, had no Stability Augmentation or Auto Pilot....was single pilot....
We can see where this is headed.
Such events are absolute tragedies on multiple levels and have to be addressed as such by those of us who seek to find answers out of what happened.
I suggest we all can learn from such events....or at least should as we are all subject to being a victim if we do not keep our guard up and seek the safe road when we are confronted with making decisions as this very experienced and dedicated Pilot had to do the other morning.
Look in the mirror here guys and gals...he got up that morning just like we all do at some time in our flying careers and was confronted with the need to make a decision that was not easy to make.
Until we learn the results of the official investigation we shall not know (and probably will not know even then) what actually happened to cause the fatal crash. Until then all is mere supposition....and we should remember that.
The hardest word for Pilots to utter is the simple one syllable word "NO!"
We have to say it to ourselves first....and get used to saying it...before we can call ourselves "Professional Pilots".
That being said....at about this point in our discussions on this topic over the years...usually following a tragedy such as this one...I post the Federal Air Regulation that pertains to Night VFR flight by Part 135 Air Taxi Operators.
I shall do so again and understand folks....I am the one to high light the words that are in bold print. Unfortunately the FAA does not do so when printing the documents that hold the following information.
§ 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.
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.
Now...put yourself in a situation where you have 10SM vis with a 600-1000 foot variable ceiliing and a One Degree Temp/Dew Point spread....and a very rural sparsely lit terrain. Add in the issue of the flight being very "Time Sensitive" and probably a no notice request for a flight.
Add in the fact the aircraft was a strictly VFR machine, had no Stability Augmentation or Auto Pilot....was single pilot....
We can see where this is headed.
Such events are absolute tragedies on multiple levels and have to be addressed as such by those of us who seek to find answers out of what happened.
I suggest we all can learn from such events....or at least should as we are all subject to being a victim if we do not keep our guard up and seek the safe road when we are confronted with making decisions as this very experienced and dedicated Pilot had to do the other morning.
Look in the mirror here guys and gals...he got up that morning just like we all do at some time in our flying careers and was confronted with the need to make a decision that was not easy to make.
Until we learn the results of the official investigation we shall not know (and probably will not know even then) what actually happened to cause the fatal crash. Until then all is mere supposition....and we should remember that.
The hardest word for Pilots to utter is the simple one syllable word "NO!"
We have to say it to ourselves first....and get used to saying it...before we can call ourselves "Professional Pilots".
Last edited by SASless; 28th Dec 2011 at 12:48.
I personally try to learn as much as possible from these sometimes heated discussions after an accident has taken place... They are a valuable tool to any pilot, whether the content is agreed upon or not. So far a lot of interresting points have been brought up from which I can learn or re-remember my training regarding night flying... I'm sure a few can say that as well.
The debate against single/twin engine and single/multi crew will go on for ever until the laws are changed and enforced. Unfortunately, we as pilots often don't have the choice to decide. Sure we can say no to certain flights, but as in this case for example (which might have happened), when someone knocks on your door late at night and asks you to go fetch a heart urgently before it and/or the recipient dies, what are you going to say??? I can only do it in the twin... But lets say the twin is down, not fueled, or parked in the back of the hangar and it will take an hour to get it airborne...and the perfectly good old 206 is parked in front, fueled and ready to go... 9 out of 10... if not 10 out of 10 of us, who all have done these flights before in a singles and on our own (with out the added rush of loss of life pressure) would say lets go.....
A quick look at the accident history over the last few years doesn't exclude twins flying multi crew from CFIT, but given the choice of a personal flight I'm sure we would all like to take the nice new twin with auto pilot/land against the trusty old single parked in the hangar.... but, do we always have the choice when we work...? Don't we wish......
The debate against single/twin engine and single/multi crew will go on for ever until the laws are changed and enforced. Unfortunately, we as pilots often don't have the choice to decide. Sure we can say no to certain flights, but as in this case for example (which might have happened), when someone knocks on your door late at night and asks you to go fetch a heart urgently before it and/or the recipient dies, what are you going to say??? I can only do it in the twin... But lets say the twin is down, not fueled, or parked in the back of the hangar and it will take an hour to get it airborne...and the perfectly good old 206 is parked in front, fueled and ready to go... 9 out of 10... if not 10 out of 10 of us, who all have done these flights before in a singles and on our own (with out the added rush of loss of life pressure) would say lets go.....
A quick look at the accident history over the last few years doesn't exclude twins flying multi crew from CFIT, but given the choice of a personal flight I'm sure we would all like to take the nice new twin with auto pilot/land against the trusty old single parked in the hangar.... but, do we always have the choice when we work...? Don't we wish......
Spot on SASless, nice post indeed. I would also add that this very experienced IFR qualified pilot was 68yrs old. Illegal in Europe for single pilot ops due to health limits etc.
Picture this:
Nothing but inky blackness as far as the eye can see - scud running at between 500 and 1000 feet over forests, no stab system to take the strain. Press on itis from the rear seat/ops and a guy just 2yrs short of 70.
Who, exactly is supervising this aspect of FAA operations, to CONTINUE to allow crash after crash in the US EMS world. When will you guys learn, enough is enough. I thought EMS had been flushed through and a safer regime adopted. Obviously not.
Very very sad for those left behind, but VERY avoidable.
RIP
Who's next guys>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Picture this:
Nothing but inky blackness as far as the eye can see - scud running at between 500 and 1000 feet over forests, no stab system to take the strain. Press on itis from the rear seat/ops and a guy just 2yrs short of 70.
Who, exactly is supervising this aspect of FAA operations, to CONTINUE to allow crash after crash in the US EMS world. When will you guys learn, enough is enough. I thought EMS had been flushed through and a safer regime adopted. Obviously not.
Very very sad for those left behind, but VERY avoidable.
RIPWho's next guys>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: USA
Posts: 336
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Firstly,let me add to the condolences offered here to the three souls in the aircraft and also to the person waiting for the heart transplant.The pilot was experienced and he certainly did not wake up that morning thinking that this would be a good day to die.There,but for the grace of God, go I.
Second, I too fly a VFR single (AS350B2) for an EMS outfit.We have only recently been provided with NVGs and before that,at my location, there were times when,if granny turned the porch light off at night, I was,for all intents and purposes, IFR.So,I too am on both sides of the Night VFR issue.
Twins versus singles is a non starter at this point as we don't know if the engine had anything to do with this.But, twins do have the ability to haul a lot more weight ,i.e. a second pilot,more bells and whistles etc.However, I do recall an S76 "fully loaded" for IFR with two pilots on board ,departing an airport,no less, running into a hill a few minutes after take off because they forgot to climb.
Ultimately, it boils down to Training and Technology going hand in hand.And, to be an EMS pilot and be able to say NO every now and then also requires a certain Temperament. It is up to the operators to offer the first two and to help select the appropriate guy for the job.And, it is getting harder everyday as the pool of experienced ,qualified pilots dries up.
Hope you all have a safe and a happy 2012.
Alt3.
Second, I too fly a VFR single (AS350B2) for an EMS outfit.We have only recently been provided with NVGs and before that,at my location, there were times when,if granny turned the porch light off at night, I was,for all intents and purposes, IFR.So,I too am on both sides of the Night VFR issue.
Twins versus singles is a non starter at this point as we don't know if the engine had anything to do with this.But, twins do have the ability to haul a lot more weight ,i.e. a second pilot,more bells and whistles etc.However, I do recall an S76 "fully loaded" for IFR with two pilots on board ,departing an airport,no less, running into a hill a few minutes after take off because they forgot to climb.
Ultimately, it boils down to Training and Technology going hand in hand.And, to be an EMS pilot and be able to say NO every now and then also requires a certain Temperament. It is up to the operators to offer the first two and to help select the appropriate guy for the job.And, it is getting harder everyday as the pool of experienced ,qualified pilots dries up.
Hope you all have a safe and a happy 2012.
Alt3.
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: Center of the Universe
Posts: 645
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
do we always have the choice when we work...?
BTW, my understanding so far is that this flight, while somewhat urgent, was not a matter of immediate life or death. It appears as though the transplant recipient had a substantial time window and continued waiting for a new organ to become available after the flight. As others have pointed out, not an EMS flight responding to a trauma event.
Assuming a standard Bell 206B....thus no Stab or Auto pilot....most probably a GPS of some kind....basic panel...DG, ADI, VSI, ALT, AS, Compass, perhaps a VOR and Tspnder.
Again....as stated...all comments are based on supposition....not certified fact.
Just how many 1976 vintage 206's actually have SAS/Auto Pilot gear?
Again....as stated...all comments are based on supposition....not certified fact.
Just how many 1976 vintage 206's actually have SAS/Auto Pilot gear?
"Just a pilot"
Yo, "Thomas Coupling"
"Who, exactly is supervising this aspect of FAA operations, to CONTINUE to allow crash after crash in the US EMS world. When will you guys learn, enough is enough. I thought EMS had been flushed through and a safer regime adopted. Obviously not."
The accident flight was not an EMS flight. This was a charter to harvest a donated organ.
Far as I know, nobody in the FAA is "allowing crash after crash in the US EMS world" or any other facet of US aviation. Mostly, I find relying on equipment- lots of engines, gauges, second pilots and autopilots, cooperative passengers and ATC to be very bad risk management. They all present issues and that stuff won't make the PIC smarter or errors made any less difficult. If the very real prospect of a killing oneself by accepting too much hazard isn't sufficient discouragement, all the regulations, risk assessment matrices in the world won't keep you out of a smoking hole.
Not saying I don't wish for power redundancy, etc. I do, often, and I can make it work. But I've also been way down in the bottom of that bucket scrabbling hard to get out, I have no illusions about invulnerability.
There seem to me to be many factors in common with a long list of accidents in this flight. The fact that this was a single, older pilot and a 206 isn't high on my list of potential issues.
The accident flight was not an EMS flight. This was a charter to harvest a donated organ.
Far as I know, nobody in the FAA is "allowing crash after crash in the US EMS world" or any other facet of US aviation. Mostly, I find relying on equipment- lots of engines, gauges, second pilots and autopilots, cooperative passengers and ATC to be very bad risk management. They all present issues and that stuff won't make the PIC smarter or errors made any less difficult. If the very real prospect of a killing oneself by accepting too much hazard isn't sufficient discouragement, all the regulations, risk assessment matrices in the world won't keep you out of a smoking hole.
Not saying I don't wish for power redundancy, etc. I do, often, and I can make it work. But I've also been way down in the bottom of that bucket scrabbling hard to get out, I have no illusions about invulnerability.
There seem to me to be many factors in common with a long list of accidents in this flight. The fact that this was a single, older pilot and a 206 isn't high on my list of potential issues.
Last edited by Devil 49; 28th Dec 2011 at 14:47. Reason: point clarification
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: Center of the Universe
Posts: 645
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Just how many 1976 vintage 206's actually have SAS/Auto Pilot gear?