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

Ornge helicopter crash

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

Ornge helicopter crash

Old 7th Nov 2013, 11:16
  #101 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: May 2002
Location: Downeast
Age: 75
Posts: 18,267
Received 467 Likes on 191 Posts
Just what does TC really do....if Monitoring Operators is not part of their tasking?
SASless is offline  
Old 7th Nov 2013, 12:39
  #102 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: Philadelphia PA
Age: 73
Posts: 1,835
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like on 1 Post
Sasless:
What does TC do? Unfortunately (and often) the working level inspectors are ignored. Or the 'working level' inspectors are not qualified.
On a recent trip to a very experienced bush helicopter operator, the complaint was that the last TC visit was done by inspectors who were re-badged flight attendants. The main complaint they had was that there was nowhere to stow the briefcases and backpacks that the passengers brought into the rear seats. The inspectors were demanding these things be provided with proper stowages - in the cabin.
Shawn Coyle is offline  
Old 8th Nov 2013, 01:13
  #103 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jun 2008
Location: Canada
Posts: 69
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Working at TC

I agree with you Shawn.
The problem at TC is huge because of the cuts made during the last couple of years. Inspectors are leaving and not replaced and those left have to take the amount of work left.... Of course it does not work and at the end, there is no good service for anybody.
When the regulator is in this situation, there is no hope to get a good service and no hope for people to do what they should do. It is an open door for auto regulation even TC denied it. And I don't see how it could improve.
So, this monitoring cannot be done properly.

Congratulation for you autorotation book Shawn, it is very interesting !
Arcal76 is offline  
Old 6th Feb 2014, 20:02
  #104 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Feb 2014
Location: Seattle, Washington
Age: 65
Posts: 1
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Options

NVG's are not the only night safety technology available.
ChprSafety is offline  
Old 4th Jun 2014, 19:54
  #105 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: May 2010
Location: Edmonton
Posts: 7
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Ornge, Ontario's air ambulance service, faces 17 labour code charges - Toronto - CBC News
hepkat is offline  
Old 17th Jun 2016, 22:56
  #106 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: May 2010
Location: Edmonton
Posts: 7
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
The report is finally out.

Aviation Investigation Report A13H0001 - Transportation Safety Board of Canada
hepkat is offline  
Old 19th Jun 2016, 10:23
  #107 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Dec 2014
Location: Africa
Posts: 535
Received 9 Likes on 6 Posts
First responsibilities lies with the pilots

This accident bears a lot of similarities with the much discussed AW139 G-LBAL helicopter crash in Gillingham, Norfolk https://www.pprune.org/showthread.php?p=9151430. Both pilots apparently uncomfortable with IMC flying and consistently avoiding night shifts or related training, thereby foregoing the opportunity to get better at it, in the occurrence flight refuse to apply basic night/IMC flying procedures: Wings level, positive climb, airspeed.

While the criticism concerning the lack of oversight by the operator over the pilots, or even by Transport Canada over the operator (as a post from oleary earlier today here seem to suggest, which by now seem to have been withdrawn) may be valid, the fact remains that in both accidents two pax put their trust into two highly experienced and qualified pilots in front of the best flying machinery money can buy.

While for every night VFR departure one must be prepared to inadvertently enter IMC, here the pilots knew that beyond the airport lights they would enter pitch black darkness. In neither case did the pilots even contemplate the challenges ahead before departure, or follow (above) basic, simple procedures that would have averted a steep yet unnoticed decent, ending with hitting the ground. Note that the aircraft, in both accidents, didn't fly into an unexpected mountain or cable, but after an initial climb descended back down to field elevation where they crashed and burned.
Hot and Hi is offline  
Old 19th Jun 2016, 13:02
  #108 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: May 2002
Location: Downeast
Age: 75
Posts: 18,267
Received 467 Likes on 191 Posts
PHI EMS lost a 76 in similar circumstances several years back....crew encountered Fog/Low Cloud immediately after Lift Off and hit the ground with the same results.



https://aviation-safety.net/wikibase/wiki.php?id=38741
SASless is offline  
Old 3rd Jul 2016, 13:34
  #109 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jun 2008
Location: Canada
Posts: 69
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Ornge arrogance and TC incompetence!

Originally Posted by SASless
PHI EMS lost a 76 in similar circumstances several years back....crew encountered Fog/Low Cloud immediately after Lift Off and hit the ground with the same results
Ornge had a choice of 6 S76 for Moosonee and took the one with the lowest equipment. Autopilot and TAWS were available on 3 aircrafts but incompetence and arrogance was their attitude.
Nobody at Transport Canada has the guts to shut down Ornge when it was the only responsible choice for this arrogant company.
Yes, it is a pilot failure but they did not get any help to improve their level. Pilots should know what they are doing and it should not happen but when a company knows that some of their pilots are weak, the company should minimize any possible risk.
Arcal76 is offline  
Old 3rd Jul 2016, 21:37
  #110 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: canada
Posts: 243
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Originally Posted by Arcal76
Originally Posted by SASless
PHI EMS lost a 76 in similar circumstances several years back....crew encountered Fog/Low Cloud immediately after Lift Off and hit the ground with the same result
Ornge had a choice of 6 S76 for Moosonee and took the one with the lowest equipment. Autopilot and TAWS were available on 3 aircrafts but incompetence and arrogance was their attitude.
Nobody at Transport Canada has the guts to shut down Ornge when it was the only responsible choice for this arrogant company.
Yes, it is a pilot failure but they did not get any help to improve their level. Pilots should know what they are doing and it should not happen but when a company knows that some of their pilots are weak, the company should minimize any possible risk.
Well said Arcal! ORNGE is not a proper helicopter operator/ company. They are an emergency medicine company with an AOC, run by non helicopter non ambulance people. They've put folks in place that just meet the TC requirement.....but the decision making is done by politically trained and controlled individuals whose job is to protect the government agencies that "effed" up!

They have now thrown money at their inability/ incompetence in running a helicopter/ air ambulance emergency response service. Front line staff are saying the same things that were said before the Moosonee accident. Again, the politico's are not listening. A million $/ 139 to retrofit for NVG's, NVG's and a new 139 itself for the Moosonee base.......around 30-35$ million more on top of 165$ million in air ambulance budget!

Labour charges for employee deaths on the job (which ORNGE is fighting with tax payer funded lawyers) to compound the spending!

You Canadian taxpayers should be livid...........!

Last edited by donut king; 3rd Jul 2016 at 21:52. Reason: Oops
donut king is offline  
Old 4th Jul 2016, 15:51
  #111 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: daworld
Posts: 642
Likes: 0
Received 2 Likes on 2 Posts
It is not a new 139 and it is not owned by Ornge. It is a leased, used 139, that they got at a very favourable rate.

The 139 should be a great leap forward for the Moosonee base and should provide cost savings for Ornge now that they can finally consolidate spares for one type as opposed to supporting two helicopter types.

They probably should have looked at NVG compatibility during the purchase process, but evidently they did not and are now retrofitting. STARS have been operating on NVG's quite happily and safely for years and reap the benefits. Ornge should too!
noooby is offline  
Old 4th Jul 2016, 17:07
  #112 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jul 2016
Location: earth
Posts: 5
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
The 139 should be a great leap forward for the Moosonee base and should provide cost savings for Ornge
Couple things are very funny about this statement:

1) A 139 is being leased to literally "leap" across a river (2.45nm according to google earth).

2) The concept of a 139 providing cost savings for anything.

STARS have been operating on NVG's quite happily and safely for years and reap the benefits. Ornge should too!
I agree. However, NVGs don't provide benefits (safety) unless they are used properly and the pilots are properly trained. And if Ornge is as incompetent at training as the report suggests, then I feel afraid for what's to come.

Being safe and effective doesn't come from equipment alone. The equipment needs to be paired with a company that has the right culture with the right staff. Nuances in the report seem to suggest that Ornge has many pilots that are competent and saw this whole accident coming. I don't think they are the ones to worry about. I'm more concerned about them putting another new hire in a 139 who gets sucked into bad weather and goes IIMC while low level at night because he wasn't trained on the finer points of flying NVGs.
green_eyes is offline  
Old 4th Jul 2016, 20:15
  #113 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: May 2004
Location: Tax-land.
Posts: 909
Received 3 Likes on 2 Posts
ORNGE has historically been going through a large number of pilots. Most of those with experience have left and have been replaced by pilots with mostly "bush" experience, no real IFR and night flying in the last few years, some with only VFR single background.
tottigol is offline  
Old 4th Jul 2016, 21:04
  #114 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: daworld
Posts: 642
Likes: 0
Received 2 Likes on 2 Posts
Perhaps EMS has different costs associated with it than Offshore O&G, but ask CHC (if you can find anyone left!) which is cheaper to operate, a 76C+ or a 139. It ain't the 76. Years of operating them side by side on the same base proved that.

I do realise that an A/A+/A++ is not a C+, but if you match performance with DOC's, it is hard to beat a 139.
noooby is offline  
Old 5th Jul 2016, 04:26
  #115 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: canada
Posts: 243
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Originally Posted by noooby
Perhaps EMS has different costs associated with it than Offshore O&G, but ask CHC (if you can find anyone left!) which is cheaper to operate, a 76C+ or a 139. It ain't the 76. Years of operating them side by side on the same base proved that.

I do realise that an A/A+/A++ is not a C+, but if you match performance with DOC's, it is hard to beat a 139.
noooby......please provide your numbers re C+ vs 139 DOC?
donut king is offline  
Old 5th Jul 2016, 12:33
  #116 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: daworld
Posts: 642
Likes: 0
Received 2 Likes on 2 Posts
Talk to the Type Engineers at CHC Global, if there are any left. 76C+ main issue was the engines and the manhours per flying hour.
Even the most loyal 76 mechanics eventually agreed that the 139 needed less manhours to keep it in the air.
They never made it anywhere near TBO and increased the DOC's. C++ helped fix that with the IBF system.
noooby is offline  
Old 5th Jul 2016, 17:02
  #117 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: canada
Posts: 243
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Originally Posted by noooby
Talk to the Type Engineers at CHC Global, if there are any left. 76C+ main issue was the engines and the manhours per flying hour.
Even the most loyal 76 mechanics eventually agreed that the 139 needed less manhours to keep it in the air.
They never made it anywhere near TBO and increased the DOC's. C++ helped fix that with the IBF system.
Hi noooby! I am in contact with many CHC as well as other operators of C+'s and 139's. Both front line and management. We'd really like to see those numbers/ database that you are referencing from.
donut king is offline  
Old 6th Jul 2016, 23:13
  #118 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: daworld
Posts: 642
Likes: 0
Received 2 Likes on 2 Posts
Sure thing. Mr Nesbitt had all the info. Not sure where he is now that he was let go. He was the one who showed me the numbers when I was converting from 76 to 139. I don't have any contact with him since he left, but I can ask around and see where he is if you like.
noooby is offline  
Old 9th Jul 2016, 21:07
  #119 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jun 2008
Location: Canada
Posts: 69
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Aw139 cost???

How the operating cost between a S76 and an AW139 could be the same??
We have been using both of them and we can tell you that the downtime on the AW139 is horrible.
We have changed 3 MGB since we operate the AW139, had tons of problems and a lots of difficulties to get parts, it is just reality....

The cost in Moosonee will explode for mostly River ops 5 minutes flight.

And now, we gone spend way more time training than working doing calls.

At the end of the day, going that way, do we still need an Air Ambulance in Ontario?
Arcal76 is offline  
Old 9th Jul 2016, 22:18
  #120 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: May 2002
Location: Downeast
Age: 75
Posts: 18,267
Received 467 Likes on 191 Posts
What you need is an Air Ambulance Operator in Ontario.

SASless is offline  

Thread Tools
Search this Thread

Contact Us - Archive - Advertising - Cookie Policy - Privacy Statement - Terms of Service

Copyright © 2024 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.