Break The Rules.....At Your Own Risk!
Thread Starter
Break The Rules.....At Your Own Risk!
Just saw this.....
On November 15th at approximately 0700 MST, Lifeguard 2 was returning to the Riverton Airport base (KRIW) from Wyoming Medical Center in Casper, Wyoming, when the aircraft struck three 69kv power line consisting of 4.0, 6 strand aluminum wrapped steel core cable. The pilot was able to land the helicopter safely and immediately. The crew used the satellite phone to contact the communications center (no cellular service at site) and the PAIP was initiated. Investigation has revealed that the pilot and crew, by flying at an en-route altitude of 80-100 feet above ground level, were acting outside the scope of their employment and in violation of Federal Aviation Regulations, company operational specifications and policies. The pilot’s employment has been terminated and disciplinary action taken against the medical crew as willing participants.
It's not breaking the rules - it's just stupidity
Purveyor of Egg Liqueur to Lucifer
Stupidity doesn't care if it is applied within the rules or not.
Just because you can fly, doesn't mean you should
Just because you can fly, doesn't mean you should
Interesting that the medical crew are being accused of being willing participants. I thought they were pasengers! Even if they did have the skills to know what was going on exactly what are they supposed to do?
There are no limits
Join Date: May 2002
Location: Shrewsbury, England.
Age: 66
Posts: 505
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I hear that many companies are now adopting a 'model of advocacy' which enables crewmembers to challenge the behaviour of one or more people.
If the crew had said something like "Captain - Why are we flying at this height (pause for explanation) - this is against the rule, please climb to safe altitude" They may not have been disciplined.
Unfortunately, rule-breaking is prevalent in this industry and so many accidents have resulted from a sequence of non-compliances. Why?
What should have happened is the pilot should have his licence suspended.
If the crew had said something like "Captain - Why are we flying at this height (pause for explanation) - this is against the rule, please climb to safe altitude" They may not have been disciplined.
Unfortunately, rule-breaking is prevalent in this industry and so many accidents have resulted from a sequence of non-compliances. Why?
What should have happened is the pilot should have his licence suspended.
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: USA
Posts: 47
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
"Three to go, One to say No!"
In the States, the FAA considers the Med Crew to be part of the aircraft crew.
Unfortunately, that allows repositioning legs to be conducted under less stringent guidelines, eg. Pt. 91 vs. Pt. 135.
Technically speaking, there are no prescribed en route Minimum Safe Altitudes (over an uninhabited area such as where this event took place) and without a regulatory "hard deck" the issue becomes one of a careless and reckless attitude.
Used to fly Medevac/ Search & Rescue and besides a risk matrix, we used that expression- "Three to go, One to say No!" to categorize overall aeronautical decision making.
Unfortunately, that allows repositioning legs to be conducted under less stringent guidelines, eg. Pt. 91 vs. Pt. 135.
Technically speaking, there are no prescribed en route Minimum Safe Altitudes (over an uninhabited area such as where this event took place) and without a regulatory "hard deck" the issue becomes one of a careless and reckless attitude.
Used to fly Medevac/ Search & Rescue and besides a risk matrix, we used that expression- "Three to go, One to say No!" to categorize overall aeronautical decision making.
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: USA
Posts: 47
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
He needs a good aviation attorney
As with most accidents involving poor judgment, the Feds will definitely charge the pilot with-
FAR Pt. 91.13; "Careless or Reckless Operation":
(a) Aircraft operations for the purpose of air navigation. No person may operate an aircraft in a careless or reckless manner so as to endanger the life or property of another.
For good measure maybe:
Pt. 91.103; "Preflight Action" for not becoming familiar with all information concerning the flight, specifically the presence of obstructions.
&
Pt. 91.119; "Minimum Safe Altitudes" for creating a hazard to property on the ground.
Also, it is likely that they were operating in violation of the company Operations Manual which since approved by the FAA, must be complied with. So possibly more charges for violating:
Pt. 119.5; "Certifications, Authorizations, and Prohibitions."
FAR Pt. 91.13; "Careless or Reckless Operation":
(a) Aircraft operations for the purpose of air navigation. No person may operate an aircraft in a careless or reckless manner so as to endanger the life or property of another.
For good measure maybe:
Pt. 91.103; "Preflight Action" for not becoming familiar with all information concerning the flight, specifically the presence of obstructions.
&
Pt. 91.119; "Minimum Safe Altitudes" for creating a hazard to property on the ground.
Also, it is likely that they were operating in violation of the company Operations Manual which since approved by the FAA, must be complied with. So possibly more charges for violating:
Pt. 119.5; "Certifications, Authorizations, and Prohibitions."
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: Philadelphia PA
Age: 73
Posts: 1,835
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like
on
1 Post
It would be FAR 91.119 - it appears there's a bit of a get-out for helicopters, but not on closer examination (at least to my way of seeing it):
"Except when necessary for takeoff or landing, no person may operate an aircraft below the following altitudes:
(c) Over other than congested areas. An altitude of 500 feet above the surface, except over open water or sparsely populated areas. In those cases, the aircraft may not be operated closer than 500 feet to any person, vessel, vehicle, or structure.
(d) Helicopters, powered parachutes, and weight-shift-control aircraft. If the operation is conducted without hazard to persons or property on the surface—
(1) A helicopter may be operated at less than the minimums prescribed in paragraph (b) or (c) of this section, provided each person operating the helicopter complies with any routes or altitudes specifically prescribed for helicopters by the FAA;…"
So if your helicopter is hazarding persons or property on the surface (and hitting a wire would probably count0, the 500' from the structure rule does apply...
But I stand to be corrected.
"Except when necessary for takeoff or landing, no person may operate an aircraft below the following altitudes:
(c) Over other than congested areas. An altitude of 500 feet above the surface, except over open water or sparsely populated areas. In those cases, the aircraft may not be operated closer than 500 feet to any person, vessel, vehicle, or structure.
(d) Helicopters, powered parachutes, and weight-shift-control aircraft. If the operation is conducted without hazard to persons or property on the surface—
(1) A helicopter may be operated at less than the minimums prescribed in paragraph (b) or (c) of this section, provided each person operating the helicopter complies with any routes or altitudes specifically prescribed for helicopters by the FAA;…"
So if your helicopter is hazarding persons or property on the surface (and hitting a wire would probably count0, the 500' from the structure rule does apply...
But I stand to be corrected.
There are no limits
Join Date: May 2002
Location: Shrewsbury, England.
Age: 66
Posts: 505
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Well done Shawn, beat me to it by a couple of minutes although I have 14 CFR 91.119 (d) and I agree with your interpretation.
Those transmission or distribution lines were someones property and were probably going to someones property.
Those transmission or distribution lines were someones property and were probably going to someones property.
Thread Starter
Now how much you want to bet....I wager Dougnnuts to Dog Droppings....you can hold the stakes in your mouth....that the "Crew" (defined as everyone in the aircraft) decided to have a Jolly on the way to wherever they were going and except for the Wires jumping up and snagging them.....would have had a fun ride.
That the Med Crew did not get fired....should remind EVERY PILOT.....that when the Poo hits the Mixmaster....they....THE PILOT....are the one that gets F*cked!
Rule One in low level flying.....NEVER fly low level unless you have done a Low Recon of the entire route immediately (like in minutes) of going low level and only do it with the absolute full agreement of all on board.
Rule Two...Have clear start/end points that you cannot miss.
Rule Three...Have your wits about you....pay attention to what you are doing....and be very aware of any thing that might get in the way.
Rule Four....Have fun, enjoy it, but remember....anything happens and you are Dogfood!
Rule Five.....Don't Do It!
That the Med Crew did not get fired....should remind EVERY PILOT.....that when the Poo hits the Mixmaster....they....THE PILOT....are the one that gets F*cked!
Rule One in low level flying.....NEVER fly low level unless you have done a Low Recon of the entire route immediately (like in minutes) of going low level and only do it with the absolute full agreement of all on board.
Rule Two...Have clear start/end points that you cannot miss.
Rule Three...Have your wits about you....pay attention to what you are doing....and be very aware of any thing that might get in the way.
Rule Four....Have fun, enjoy it, but remember....anything happens and you are Dogfood!
Rule Five.....Don't Do It!
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: Los Angeles, USA
Age: 52
Posts: 1,631
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
People always forget the "over sparsely populated areas" bit and anyone who's flown in Wyoming can tell you it's pretty much Marlboro country, unless they were actually in Casper. So unless he was flying in congested areas, he was in no violation of any FAR until he came within 500ft of that structure legally.
Last edited by AdamFrisch; 24th Nov 2012 at 19:08.
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: USA
Posts: 47
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Formal Charges still to come
Might takes months and months to know the exact charges.
(It's not like committing a crime, where you are charged upon arrest)
Even if the aircraft sustained only minor damage, this still should qualify as an accident due to the cost to repair the damaged power lines. Although the pilot must immediately notify the NTSB, they actually have 10 days to complete a more formal wriiten report.
I would expect that the phone notification included just the minimum details, and may have even be made by the company and not the pilot involved.
After the NTSB gets notified, they'll contact the local FAA Office.
The pilot will then get a phone call from the FAA. Since no one was hurt, they may wait for the filing of the written report before further follow-up with the pilot. The pilot may also choose not to discuss anything with them until securing legal representation.
And there are even more ways this could go.
Like anything involving the Govt. it usually moves slowly.
(It's not like committing a crime, where you are charged upon arrest)
Even if the aircraft sustained only minor damage, this still should qualify as an accident due to the cost to repair the damaged power lines. Although the pilot must immediately notify the NTSB, they actually have 10 days to complete a more formal wriiten report.
I would expect that the phone notification included just the minimum details, and may have even be made by the company and not the pilot involved.
After the NTSB gets notified, they'll contact the local FAA Office.
The pilot will then get a phone call from the FAA. Since no one was hurt, they may wait for the filing of the written report before further follow-up with the pilot. The pilot may also choose not to discuss anything with them until securing legal representation.
And there are even more ways this could go.
Like anything involving the Govt. it usually moves slowly.
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: USA
Posts: 47
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
MSA reg's can be confusing
Adam, i think your explanation/ interpretation of the regs was not exactly correct.
You may legally fly within 500' of a structure (or person) provided you do not hazard said structure/person(s).
It is not as simple as saying you are in violation of Minimum Safe Altitudes when you are operate with the 500' stand-off.
How about passing several hunded feet abeam someone or a boat, or a lone structure in a flat prairie... in straight and level flight?
You can see below that the exemption for helicopters get you out of the specific altitude requirements of paragraphs (b) & (c)- the 500' rule, but importantly at NO time is a helicopter exempt from paragraph (a).
This is not to mention that if the aircraft in question is a twin-engined helicopter operated in PC 1, then one could say that you are never hazarding anyone or thing in the event of a "power unit."- para (a) from the MSA regulation.
They'll still try to get you for "Careless & Reckless" operations, but even though they may lump on a MSA violation, just simply flying within 500' of something manmade or the man himself, is not necessarily a violation.
Sec. 91.119 — Minimum safe altitudes: General.
Except when necessary for takeoff or landing, no person may operate an aircraft below the following altitudes:
(a) Anywhere. An altitude allowing, if a power unit fails, an emergency landing without undue hazard to persons or property on the surface.
(b) Over congested areas. Over any congested area of a city, town, or settlement, or over any open air assembly of persons, an altitude of 1,000 feet above the highest obstacle within a horizontal radius of 2,000 feet of the aircraft.
(c) Over other than congested areas. An altitude of 500 feet above the surface, except over open water or sparsely populated areas. In those cases, the aircraft may not be operated closer than 500 feet to any person, vessel, vehicle, or structure.
(d) Helicopters, powered parachutes, and weight-shift-control aircraft. If the operation is conducted without hazard to persons or property on the surface—
(1) A helicopter may be operated at less than the minimums prescribed in paragraph (b) or (c) of this section, provided each person operating the helicopter complies with any routes or altitudes specifically prescribed for helicopters by the FAA; and
(2) A powered parachute or weight-shift-control aircraft may be operated at less than the minimums prescribed in paragraph (c) of this section.
You may legally fly within 500' of a structure (or person) provided you do not hazard said structure/person(s).
It is not as simple as saying you are in violation of Minimum Safe Altitudes when you are operate with the 500' stand-off.
How about passing several hunded feet abeam someone or a boat, or a lone structure in a flat prairie... in straight and level flight?
You can see below that the exemption for helicopters get you out of the specific altitude requirements of paragraphs (b) & (c)- the 500' rule, but importantly at NO time is a helicopter exempt from paragraph (a).
This is not to mention that if the aircraft in question is a twin-engined helicopter operated in PC 1, then one could say that you are never hazarding anyone or thing in the event of a "power unit."- para (a) from the MSA regulation.
They'll still try to get you for "Careless & Reckless" operations, but even though they may lump on a MSA violation, just simply flying within 500' of something manmade or the man himself, is not necessarily a violation.
Sec. 91.119 — Minimum safe altitudes: General.
Except when necessary for takeoff or landing, no person may operate an aircraft below the following altitudes:
(a) Anywhere. An altitude allowing, if a power unit fails, an emergency landing without undue hazard to persons or property on the surface.
(b) Over congested areas. Over any congested area of a city, town, or settlement, or over any open air assembly of persons, an altitude of 1,000 feet above the highest obstacle within a horizontal radius of 2,000 feet of the aircraft.
(c) Over other than congested areas. An altitude of 500 feet above the surface, except over open water or sparsely populated areas. In those cases, the aircraft may not be operated closer than 500 feet to any person, vessel, vehicle, or structure.
(d) Helicopters, powered parachutes, and weight-shift-control aircraft. If the operation is conducted without hazard to persons or property on the surface—
(1) A helicopter may be operated at less than the minimums prescribed in paragraph (b) or (c) of this section, provided each person operating the helicopter complies with any routes or altitudes specifically prescribed for helicopters by the FAA; and
(2) A powered parachute or weight-shift-control aircraft may be operated at less than the minimums prescribed in paragraph (c) of this section.
Whilst it is easy to suggest the medical crew were having fun hedge hopping, I suspect there is and will never be a shred of evidence to support it.
Having managed systems both sides of the Atlantic I encounter medical crew raising issues of flying below limits even when not true but never encountered them supporting dodgy rides. Ie medical crew tend to be over conservative.
This accident most likely arose from pilot error, but in terms of general accident rates time and again I have noticed flight crew change their attitude to a flight if they know the medical basis is urgent. If you tell a pilot it is a sick child or a pregnant woman, let alone tagt the patient will die if they don't fly, it inevitable changes judgement. Get there iris.
The systems I have seen in the US seem to provide this information to the pilots. In the system I have run in the UK we don't tell the pilots the medical mission merely the route. I like to think we have lost a few more transfers but taken a few less risks.
Having managed systems both sides of the Atlantic I encounter medical crew raising issues of flying below limits even when not true but never encountered them supporting dodgy rides. Ie medical crew tend to be over conservative.
This accident most likely arose from pilot error, but in terms of general accident rates time and again I have noticed flight crew change their attitude to a flight if they know the medical basis is urgent. If you tell a pilot it is a sick child or a pregnant woman, let alone tagt the patient will die if they don't fly, it inevitable changes judgement. Get there iris.
The systems I have seen in the US seem to provide this information to the pilots. In the system I have run in the UK we don't tell the pilots the medical mission merely the route. I like to think we have lost a few more transfers but taken a few less risks.
Thread Starter
Homo....how do you do a Neonat flight that requires and Isolette...and the pilot not tweak to the fact you are going after a Premature Infant?
I suspect you are talking out of the side of your mouth here.
The Crew has to know if there are special issues to be dealt with....say altitude issues, numbers of patients, condition of patients (being able to split up the med crew workload wise) and all sorts of things that the Pilot cannot help but learn....and usually neeed know about to be able to plan the flight.
Turning down flights is a business decision....not an emotional one.
I suggest the "We are Saving Lives minset is what kills EMS crews" when they adopt that rather than clearly state to all and sundry that they are providing safe, efficient, medical transportation for patients.
Perhaps I was a bit callous....but the decisions I made were professional decisions based upon the exact same considerations each time....Weather, Forecast Weather, real trends in weather compared to forecasts, aircraft equipment serviceability, and any other factor that worked to determine if the flight could be made in accordance with the rules, regulations, and policies.
As I never bought into the fancy flight suit, shiny helmet, Sky God Life Saving Crusaders cheating Old Man Death mindset probably kept me alive and safe.....but it sure pissed off a few Medical Crew who went the other road.
I suspect you are talking out of the side of your mouth here.
The Crew has to know if there are special issues to be dealt with....say altitude issues, numbers of patients, condition of patients (being able to split up the med crew workload wise) and all sorts of things that the Pilot cannot help but learn....and usually neeed know about to be able to plan the flight.
Turning down flights is a business decision....not an emotional one.
I suggest the "We are Saving Lives minset is what kills EMS crews" when they adopt that rather than clearly state to all and sundry that they are providing safe, efficient, medical transportation for patients.
Perhaps I was a bit callous....but the decisions I made were professional decisions based upon the exact same considerations each time....Weather, Forecast Weather, real trends in weather compared to forecasts, aircraft equipment serviceability, and any other factor that worked to determine if the flight could be made in accordance with the rules, regulations, and policies.
As I never bought into the fancy flight suit, shiny helmet, Sky God Life Saving Crusaders cheating Old Man Death mindset probably kept me alive and safe.....but it sure pissed off a few Medical Crew who went the other road.
