Allowing non pilots to fly HEMS
When landing en scene, there is considerable kit to carry. In addition the doctor or paramedic needs the second medical crew member to help get kit out, prepare drugs, assist with medical procedures. It has always seemed daft to have this person in the front . I always want my assistant with me in the back working with me seamlessly. If he is not he is behind me, forgets kit, and that is the start of a poor resuscitation
I also have reservations about the medical team being involved with flying and vice versa. It effects decision taking and risk assessment. It also effects concentration. I still believe a complete Chinese wall adds more safety than is lost by not having an amateur map reader / radio changer
I also have reservations about the medical team being involved with flying and vice versa. It effects decision taking and risk assessment. It also effects concentration. I still believe a complete Chinese wall adds more safety than is lost by not having an amateur map reader / radio changer
Avoid imitations
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Wandering the FIR and cyberspace often at highly unsociable times
Posts: 14,573
Received 417 Likes
on
220 Posts
Point is, if something is not allowed by law, that's all that matters; personal opinion or preference is irrelevant.
Regarding rotors running deplanes; sometimes the medics need to be dropped in a place close to the scene where it's not possible to shut down. I see no reason why pax properly trained and well versed in doing so can't get out before shutdown.
Regarding rotors running deplanes; sometimes the medics need to be dropped in a place close to the scene where it's not possible to shut down. I see no reason why pax properly trained and well versed in doing so can't get out before shutdown.
2011 incident
May 19, 2011
NTSB: FAA Medical Oversight "Inadequate"
By Glenn Pew, Contributing Editor, Video Editor
A 61-year-old helicopter pilot who suffered a stroke in 2006 should have received more attention form the FAA, the NTSB said, before an emergency took place on Dec. 29, because the same pilot couldn't move his arm. The emergency flight took place at night during an emergency medical services trip on a twin-engine Eurocopter. No patients were on board. After suffering the in-flight stroke, the pilot called a controller and requested vectors to a nearby airport. He then failed to recognize the runway and overflew the airport. With more vectors, and the aid of a flight nurse on the flight controls, the pilot managed a hard landing that caused the aircraft $220,000 in damage. The NTSB noted a contributing factor in that accident: "The Federal Aviation Administration's inadequate oversight of the pilot's known medical condition."
The FAA evaluates the medical condition of pilots on a case-by-case basis and FAA medical examiners work with the information provided by the airmen themselves. In this case, that combination allowed the stroke-pilot to fly again without any formal evaluation of the risk of a recurrent stroke. The NTSB found that the pilot's records show no definitive cause had been identified as the cause of the pilot's previous stroke. It found that the pilot had a family history of stroke and that the pilot was increasingly obese. It also found that the pilot's physician had discontinued medication "in part to reduce the pilot's risk of a future stroke." On the accident flight, the NTSB found that the pilot had suffered a "sudden onset of right hand weakness and slurred speech" while at the controls. A subsequent MRI found evidence of two recent strokes. The pilot had received his Class 2 medical four months prior.
NTSB: FAA Medical Oversight "Inadequate"
By Glenn Pew, Contributing Editor, Video Editor
A 61-year-old helicopter pilot who suffered a stroke in 2006 should have received more attention form the FAA, the NTSB said, before an emergency took place on Dec. 29, because the same pilot couldn't move his arm. The emergency flight took place at night during an emergency medical services trip on a twin-engine Eurocopter. No patients were on board. After suffering the in-flight stroke, the pilot called a controller and requested vectors to a nearby airport. He then failed to recognize the runway and overflew the airport. With more vectors, and the aid of a flight nurse on the flight controls, the pilot managed a hard landing that caused the aircraft $220,000 in damage. The NTSB noted a contributing factor in that accident: "The Federal Aviation Administration's inadequate oversight of the pilot's known medical condition."
The FAA evaluates the medical condition of pilots on a case-by-case basis and FAA medical examiners work with the information provided by the airmen themselves. In this case, that combination allowed the stroke-pilot to fly again without any formal evaluation of the risk of a recurrent stroke. The NTSB found that the pilot's records show no definitive cause had been identified as the cause of the pilot's previous stroke. It found that the pilot had a family history of stroke and that the pilot was increasingly obese. It also found that the pilot's physician had discontinued medication "in part to reduce the pilot's risk of a future stroke." On the accident flight, the NTSB found that the pilot had suffered a "sudden onset of right hand weakness and slurred speech" while at the controls. A subsequent MRI found evidence of two recent strokes. The pilot had received his Class 2 medical four months prior.
It says more about poor medical oversight and clinical scrutiny by the FAA.
61 years old, a family history of strokes and becoming increasingly obese - doesn't take a rocket scientist to work out what might happen, especially if his BP is high as well - and he had been on medication, presumably to lower his BP.
An ECG might tell you if the heart is damaged, diseased or abnormal but won't tell you if you are prone to strokes.
61 years old, a family history of strokes and becoming increasingly obese - doesn't take a rocket scientist to work out what might happen, especially if his BP is high as well - and he had been on medication, presumably to lower his BP.
An ECG might tell you if the heart is damaged, diseased or abnormal but won't tell you if you are prone to strokes.
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: UK
Posts: 10
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Non pilot HEMS
Homonculus, in most UK H.E.M.S units, H.E.M.S Crew members/paramedics are a tad more than "amateur map readers/radio changers", they are an integral part of the flight crew involved in not only navigation, but pre landing/take off checks, assisting the Pilot with ILS information and comms with various ground units/control rooms. In my experience, having a paramedic seated in the front does not delay getting the crew to patient at all, as once shut down, we make our way as a crew together to the patient. That said, I completely disagree with allowing non-pilots to fly the a/c.
Thanks BAP70. We will have to disagree as to whether the medical team should remain a separate but integral unit or be diverted into a multi function role. However your description of the extended aviation role of individuals who are not aircrew does nothing to reassure me.
Turning to the US incident, I think the medical history is muddled as it simply doesnt make medical sense. The pilot may have had an increased risk of a stroke due to family history, hypertension and obesity, but the FAA have a risk assessment algorithm as does the UK. The fact that he had an MRI makes me suspicious that he was investigated after the incident but not before.
The reality is that pilots are more healthy than the general population and have a lower risk of sudden incapacitation. In the UK the CAA is still setting the standard against risks that are some 20 years out of date, and the true risk is now far far lower. Uncle Ian can provide chapter and verse on this. Unless you ban single pilot operations the evidence supports the consensus that non pilots shouldnt fly these aircraft!
Turning to the US incident, I think the medical history is muddled as it simply doesnt make medical sense. The pilot may have had an increased risk of a stroke due to family history, hypertension and obesity, but the FAA have a risk assessment algorithm as does the UK. The fact that he had an MRI makes me suspicious that he was investigated after the incident but not before.
The reality is that pilots are more healthy than the general population and have a lower risk of sudden incapacitation. In the UK the CAA is still setting the standard against risks that are some 20 years out of date, and the true risk is now far far lower. Uncle Ian can provide chapter and verse on this. Unless you ban single pilot operations the evidence supports the consensus that non pilots shouldnt fly these aircraft!
Allegedly this has been tried before. Both police officers and paramedics may have been shown basic manouevres to assist in dire emergencies.
{usual boll**ks about your Instructor keeling over and your wife's dog being able to steer the a/c to safety
}.
Bottom line is it requires dedicated trng and also currency training for non flyers to fly the bloo**y a/c.
Who makes up these clap trap stories anyway?
Why are we discussing such drivel?
{usual boll**ks about your Instructor keeling over and your wife's dog being able to steer the a/c to safety
}.Bottom line is it requires dedicated trng and also currency training for non flyers to fly the bloo**y a/c.
Who makes up these clap trap stories anyway?
Why are we discussing such drivel?
Homonculus, in most UK H.E.M.S units, H.E.M.S Crew members/paramedics are a tad more than "amateur map readers/radio changers", they are an integral part of the flight crew involved in not only navigation, but pre landing/take off checks, assisting the Pilot with ILS information and comms with various ground units/control rooms.
By the way, in the German Airforce the experienced crewchiefs on the UH-1 often could fly better than the young pilots
.... but officially they werent allowed to touch the controls!skadi
Last edited by skadi; 5th Apr 2013 at 18:12.
Avoid imitations
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Wandering the FIR and cyberspace often at highly unsociable times
Posts: 14,573
Received 417 Likes
on
220 Posts
By the way, in the German Airforce the experienced crewchiefs on the UH-1 often could fly better than the young pilots.... but officially they werent allowed to touch the controls!
Three of the crewmen I used to fly with went on to be professional pilots (four if you counted CharlieGolf, but he after gaining his PPL wings realised he was too clever to fly for a living, so he became a schoolteacher and headmaster instead).
Another was one of the chief glider pilots in the RAF system. One became a Concorde First Officer and another chief training captain for a well known UK company.
The chap who checked out CPLHs for the CAA for many years, and will be a familiar name to many of the pilots here, was an Army Air Corps observer when I first met him (I think he's since been promoted even further within the CAA and good on him, too).
We aren't discussing military crew chiefs nor being shot at. We are talking about ambulance drivers flying, or assisting in the flying of it seems IFR approaches. In some cases they are on part time or short term secondment from driving ambulances.
For once TC we are in total agreement - why indeed are grown men (or women) discussing such drivel
For once TC we are in total agreement - why indeed are grown men (or women) discussing such drivel
We are talking about ambulance drivers flying, or assisting in the flying of it seems IFR approaches. In some cases they are on part time or short term secondment from driving ambulances.
skadi
"Just a pilot"
In US commercial ops, ONLY an appropriately certified aviator employed, trained, approved, and designated by the operator can manipulate the controls in flight.
Last edited by Devil 49; 6th Apr 2013 at 13:33.
Thread Starter
Join Date: May 2012
Location: Everywhere
Posts: 12
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I haven't left, thanks for all responses. To this date i still haven't found an actual regulation that prohibits dual controls when pax is sitting in copilot seat. I have however found in the aircraft manual that eurocopter recommends the removal but does not say it is mandatory.
I will like to add, this dodgy business isn't being practiced, the idea is out there, hence why i am looking for regulations to stop it in case the company/captains allow it.
I will like to add, this dodgy business isn't being practiced, the idea is out there, hence why i am looking for regulations to stop it in case the company/captains allow it.
Thread Starter
Join Date: May 2012
Location: Everywhere
Posts: 12
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I know about that regulation. We all know about that regulation. However, such regulation will not stop "some" captains allowing the nurse to "practice". The captains have stated that they prefer dual controls so that the nurse can take control in case of captain being unable to fly. Question is, when will the nurse be allowed to practice landing? Only chance to do so is during an actual HEMS flight (possibly back to base after service).
A regulation prohibiting dual controls will fix the problem, allowing dual controls but not allowing nurse to touch them will not fix it, as I, and most of us, know for a fact that the captains will want to teach them basics.
A regulation prohibiting dual controls will fix the problem, allowing dual controls but not allowing nurse to touch them will not fix it, as I, and most of us, know for a fact that the captains will want to teach them basics.
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: Southern Hemisphere
Posts: 14
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
John,
The distances involved in far North Queensland, as well as the frequent outages in the road network due to weather events, quite often means HEMS are the first responders, with little or no chance of a road crew backup.
The distances involved in far North Queensland, as well as the frequent outages in the road network due to weather events, quite often means HEMS are the first responders, with little or no chance of a road crew backup.
!?