Go Back  PPRuNe Forums > Aircrew Forums > Rotorheads
Reload this Page >

Irish Air Corp HEMS accident

Rotorheads A haven for helicopter professionals to discuss the things that affect them

Irish Air Corp HEMS accident

Old 29th Jun 2012, 21:52
  #61 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: Omnipresent
Posts: 398
Devil

FADEC should prevent overtorque.

Overtorque should not require PAN unless other damage sustained.

H
Hedski is offline  
Old 30th Jun 2012, 07:07
  #62 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Beside the seaside
Posts: 670
AW139 does not have FADEC. It has a Torque Limiter but this has to be selected on otherwise an over torque is possible. To overtorque a 139 is quite a feat and would take an awful lot of effort.
Epiphany is offline  
Old 30th Jun 2012, 07:43
  #63 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: Cornwall
Age: 72
Posts: 1,305
To do the job - in this case HEMS - you need some core skills

I apologise in advance for banging on about this but the lack of experienced pilots in the global helicopter community is putting undue pressure an areas where either funds are in short supply or customer demand is irresistible. The days of using flight hours as a measure of competence are over given the plethora of guys with 1,000 times the same hour and the lack of transparency over logbook entries.

The true measure of competence is to ask the candidate to demonstrate his skills and if they are inadequate for the job envisaged then he MUST RECEIVE ADDITIONAL TRAINING which will include a programme of mentoring and adequate oversight and then and only then is he or she 'fit-for-purpose'.

If every helicopter operator ran that system we would be in the clear but most are managed by non-trainers who don't understand the impact that good training can have on the bottom line in the sense that your reputation is enhanced, more business comes your way and you suffer less fleet damage and fewer accidents. All they care about is that training (along with spares provisions) are invisible ingredients the customer cannot see therefore they are cut to the bone and WE HAVE TO PICK UP THE CONSEQUENCES.

It's not rocket-science - capable people do a good job, incapable people can bring you and your organisation down!!

G.
Geoffersincornwall is offline  
Old 30th Jun 2012, 08:29
  #64 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: On the big blue planet
Posts: 940
The PWC PT6C-67C has no FADEC??????

skadi
skadi is offline  
Old 30th Jun 2012, 13:09
  #65 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: UK
Age: 67
Posts: 1,368
Geoffers,

Your desire to push the idea of a competence management system is admirable. The opposition it receives is similar in most cases: filthy lucre, cash and the lack of it, the desire to make money (in a commercial organisation) or reduce costs in a government one. And the thought or assumption that accidents are unlikely to happen. I am not saying this is right, just that it happens.

My understanding is that many IAC pilots leave as soon as they get a decent amount of experience to add to their training to build their competence levels, to be employable elsewhere.

I would venture a guess that they go because they can get paid more somewhere else. Probably the main reason that the default option for Irish government helicopter ops is to use the IAC is money (or a least a belief that using the IAC is cheaper).

If you can keep your accident rate down and not have a CMS you can save money/increase profit. However, if you start to amass a significant helicopter graveyard you maybe need a rethink. Even then, current cash and capital assets are often considered differently, for example in countries that are broke.

In some cases, it would appear that having accidents has pretty immediate serious adverse consequences to the operator (e.g. Bond losing offshore contracts after gearbox failures). In others (e.g. IAC) the same sort of consequences do not seem to have occurred yet.

Helicopter aviation is significantly different to most other industries. Its decisions are based on short term gain or loss considerations, more than pretty much any industry I can think of. Whilst pilots can move and are expected to move so often, the extent to which an operator will invest in training (and other things necessary for the achievement of competence) are limited.

Last edited by Helinut; 30th Jun 2012 at 13:18.
Helinut is offline  
Old 30th Jun 2012, 20:09
  #66 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2000
Location: UK
Posts: 3,686
Devil

Geoffers: How do you mentor/supervise SPIFR ops? How do you sit next to a guy trying to refresh his/her skills with EMS?

Exactly - you can't. This is the problem...the ONLY way of assessing is by the back door - do some phoning around and learn about the individual before they take the reins.
If on the other hand one ends up with a dud - get rid!
[We don't want to end up like the US EMS fraternity now do we?]

Last edited by Thomas coupling; 30th Jun 2012 at 20:09.
Thomas coupling is offline  
Old 30th Jun 2012, 21:10
  #67 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: Cornwall
Age: 72
Posts: 1,305
TC

Mentoring

HEMS London has a policy of mentoring its medics which is why it needs the extra seat in cabin. If you configure for mentoring then you can do it but you must include it in your master plan and tool-up for a 2-pilot operation.

It would be possible - if folk were rally interested - to do this in a number of ways.

1. You configure the aircraft for 2 pilot ops and put an extra seat in the cabin for Medic 2. You may lose a stretcher but no gain without pain.
2. NPAS can have one aircraft configured for training/mentoring.
3. Those AA counties with more than one aircraft can make some cash using one in the training configuration and help everyone move forward.
4. Mentoring SPIFR needs the same deal with the mentor acting as ballast and safety pilot at the same time.

No perfect solution is available but IT CAN BE DONE if the will is there and the understanding that you cannot send a newbie solo HEMS, Police, SAR, SPIFR or Fire Fighting without realising that the current system is not going to work without this vital ingredient.

A lot of work will be possible in the new (and cheaper) role- related sims - ask ADAC.

We need a process not a slap-happy approach to this serious business of asking young men and women to take on demanding roles without proper preparation.

G.

PS - Of course we will wait forever for the regulators to act on the question of 'mentoring' but it may just be possible for FOIs to interpret the current regulations in such a way that mentoring is recognised as best practice (like aircrew wearing goonsuits offshore which started as an operator choice and was then adopted as regulation) then the lack of a mentoring programme can be found to be 'inadequate' training and role preparation.

Last edited by Geoffersincornwall; 30th Jun 2012 at 21:33. Reason: post script
Geoffersincornwall is offline  
Old 4th Apr 2013, 11:36
  #68 (permalink)  
Bremen
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Irish air corp EC 135 HEMS crash report

http://www.aaiu.ie/sites/default/fil...2013-004_0.pdf


Only in Ireland. The military doing dedicate HEMS with civil medical crew and no external civil over sight.
 
Old 4th Apr 2013, 16:00
  #69 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: Downwind of a smelly passenger
Age: 49
Posts: 171
Radios for the Ambulance Drivers??

You have got to be F#@King kidding me!!!

That should have been covered in Risk Assessment.!!
What about proper training!!!
What about HSE!!
What about High Low Recon!!!
What about pre approved / surveyed landing sites
What about getting an non biased report from independent 3rd party and not Ex Aircorps crew who are in the AAIU.!
What about the Tail strike earlier in the same week with the same machine at that barracks!!
Downwind shallow approach? with speed on, don't give you time to see and avoid wires.

So Sad and lucky no-one was hurt!!!
funfinn2000 is offline  
Old 4th Apr 2013, 17:43
  #70 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2000
Location: Liverpool based Geordie, so calm down, calm down kidda!!
Age: 56
Posts: 1,997
CVR tells me enough. He is being professional and is trying to do things properly. Two sets of eyes fail to spot the wires, they can be really hard to see. This is an operating risk, these things happen, unlucky not gash.
Move on, hems can bite, even with robust safety procedures.
jayteeto is offline  
Old 4th Apr 2013, 19:25
  #71 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2000
Location: UK
Posts: 3,686
Jay2: I hope you don't mind, but I have to disagree.

Wires are THE issue for HEMS drivers. NOTHING takes precedence during an approach NOTHING. Not radios, not press on itis. It's all down to crew preparation.

I remember as if it was yesterday, the brief we used to conduct:
Hi level cct. Low lvl cct. 5 x S's and shoot the approach.
No radio comms allowed.
Everyone eyes out.
First to spot wires MUST route them. If he/she can't route the wirtes, abandon the approach.
300 hems missions.
NO close shaves.

Hitting wires is a failure of human factors/CRM unfortunately.
Thomas coupling is offline  
Old 4th Apr 2013, 23:06
  #72 (permalink)  

Purveyor of Egg Liqueur to Lucifer
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: Alles über die platz
Posts: 4,617
TC, read the report FFS!

I agree with Jayteeto
SilsoeSid is offline  
Old 5th Apr 2013, 00:25
  #73 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: Ireland
Posts: 384
TC, read the report FFS!

I agree with Jayteeto
X2.

500 Fan.
500 Fan is offline  
Old 5th Apr 2013, 05:09
  #74 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: Redding CA, or on a fire somewhere
Posts: 1,765
I'm with jayteeto....

I am required to do a full day of "Wire Training" each year. We take the course taught by Utilities Aviation Specialists. I learn something new every year, (and I just did year 6). I also have attended many Human Factors courses---while not an expert by any means, I do believe I am getting a grasp on it.

While they could adjust some of their techniques for spotting the wires, (or more importantly---where the wires "could be, and not see"), they did most things right.

Yes it was a failure of "Human Factors"----I counter with---your eyes will lie to your brain and your brain will believe it..... therefore, not their fault, but the fault of our wiring--and lack of training to recognise the inherent faults in the system, (our bodies).

I will give you an example---be honest.....

Hint--concentrate on just the white shirt players:

Gordy is offline  
Old 5th Apr 2013, 08:34
  #75 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2000
Location: Liverpool based Geordie, so calm down, calm down kidda!!
Age: 56
Posts: 1,997
TC, I hear what you say and agree with what you say. I just believe that the CVR points to this guy trying to do exactly what you say.
jayteeto is offline  
Old 5th Apr 2013, 09:31
  #76 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: Europe
Posts: 91
Small point. The investigator is an Ex Air Corps engineeer, not crew at ff200 states. And he's a very professional and fair individual. So play the ball, and not the man.
Langball is offline  
Old 5th Apr 2013, 16:34
  #77 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: Downwind of a smelly passenger
Age: 49
Posts: 171
Crew can also mean Engineer or Cabin crew,

Fair !! maybe It be fair to condemn the IAC or any AOC for carrying out missions that they were not prepared for.
funfinn2000 is offline  
Old 5th Apr 2013, 17:08
  #78 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2000
Location: UK
Posts: 3,686
500fan: chill out babes!
I did read the report (FFS).
If...IF one was to put it down to "comes with the territory", I think most of you here would have to accept that (considering possibly thousands of HEMS jobs are done every day globally) there would be a dramatic increase in accidents.
There aren't. Wire strikes during EMS are extremely rare...extremely rare!
Possibly running into barely double digits each year....GLOBALLY.

Why is that then? Luck has absolutely nothing to do with it. It's always down to the correct CRM/HF atmosphere in the cockpit.
During approaches (I'm wording carefully here) there is absolutely NO excuse for a wire strike, NONE. Pilot error. Crew either not up to speed with SOP's/standards/distraction, etc;
99.9% of all approaches are clean. 0.1 are flawed and that is down to duff pilots/crew. Simples.
Thomas coupling is offline  
Old 5th Apr 2013, 19:59
  #79 (permalink)  

Avoid imitations
 
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Wandering the FIR and cyberspace often at highly unsociable times
Posts: 12,645
TC, I hear what you say and agree with what you say. I just believe that the CVR points to this guy trying to do exactly what you say.
I agree. The crew made a human error on the day, despite their best efforts. No need to try and rubbish the whole outfit.

Easy for folks to criticise others and take a "holier than thou" attitude when they no longer fly themselves and are therefore no longer in danger of making a human error.
ShyTorque is offline  
Old 5th Apr 2013, 22:07
  #80 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2000
Location: UK
Posts: 3,686
Shy: please don't make it personal. How do you know I don't still fly?
30 yrs and 7000hrs of emergency services flying gives me a little insight into how things tick. Please afford me that much, or has it all been for nowt

You disappoint me.
Thomas coupling is offline  

Thread Tools
Search this Thread

Contact Us - Archive - Advertising - Cookie Policy - Privacy Statement - Terms of Service - Do Not Sell My Personal Information

Copyright © 2018 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.