Was this winch necessary?
Thread Starter
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: Near the beach
Age: 63
Posts: 61
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Was this winch necessary?
https://www.atsb.gov.au/publications...-2013-136.aspx
The above link into the preliminary report by the Australian Transport Safety Bureau covering an operational event involving a Bell 412, VH-VAS on 31 August 2013 provides a horrific insight into the final moments of a failed winch rescue attempt.
Whether this casualty’s injuries required winch rescue has no doubt been debated extensively in crew rooms already. However, in the interest of determining best practice I would like to pose three questions:
1. Considering the distance from the road marked in ATSB image and the reported injury (broken ankle), was a winch rescue needed?
2. If you do believe that a winch rescue was needed, was a double lift using a single strop, over land, at a height of 80’ an appropriate means of recovering somebody “the size of the patient”?
3. Given a general restriction on live winch training over land not to exceed 15’, are rear crews being provided with realistic exposure to the potential problems, and perhaps more importantly, the control processes associated with high winching ‘live’ passengers?
Please do not see this as an attack on the crew concerned, but a genuine desire to raise debate on well established process that may be in need of review.
The above link into the preliminary report by the Australian Transport Safety Bureau covering an operational event involving a Bell 412, VH-VAS on 31 August 2013 provides a horrific insight into the final moments of a failed winch rescue attempt.
Whether this casualty’s injuries required winch rescue has no doubt been debated extensively in crew rooms already. However, in the interest of determining best practice I would like to pose three questions:
1. Considering the distance from the road marked in ATSB image and the reported injury (broken ankle), was a winch rescue needed?
2. If you do believe that a winch rescue was needed, was a double lift using a single strop, over land, at a height of 80’ an appropriate means of recovering somebody “the size of the patient”?
3. Given a general restriction on live winch training over land not to exceed 15’, are rear crews being provided with realistic exposure to the potential problems, and perhaps more importantly, the control processes associated with high winching ‘live’ passengers?
Please do not see this as an attack on the crew concerned, but a genuine desire to raise debate on well established process that may be in need of review.
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: Canada
Posts: 27
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Copy/paste of my post in the other thread on this incident.
What would possess someone to use a strop (horse collar) with out a crotch strap. (assuming that is what was used here) Any system that relies on active patient participation is doomed to failure as we have seen. We use screamer suits that you can't come out of and have a horse collar for special circumstances, and it has a crotch strap as well. It's not like they're more expensive or harder to use.
What would possess someone to use a strop (horse collar) with out a crotch strap. (assuming that is what was used here) Any system that relies on active patient participation is doomed to failure as we have seen. We use screamer suits that you can't come out of and have a horse collar for special circumstances, and it has a crotch strap as well. It's not like they're more expensive or harder to use.
1. Yes.
2. No, using two strops would have been far more comfortable for the casualty and ensured that any shock wasn't worsened by blood draining from the core to the legs because the casualty would be horizontal not vertical.
3. We had a similar, temporary height restriction for a while due to a winch issue and in that time it was noticeable that crews lost awareness and finesse of techniques for higher winching. Now resolved and back to normal.
A double strop lift is used for all casualties in the water (to avoid inducing shock when winching vertically) and for those land incidents where a stretcher lift is either not practical or necessary; it is quick, efficient and safe.
2. No, using two strops would have been far more comfortable for the casualty and ensured that any shock wasn't worsened by blood draining from the core to the legs because the casualty would be horizontal not vertical.
3. We had a similar, temporary height restriction for a while due to a winch issue and in that time it was noticeable that crews lost awareness and finesse of techniques for higher winching. Now resolved and back to normal.
A double strop lift is used for all casualties in the water (to avoid inducing shock when winching vertically) and for those land incidents where a stretcher lift is either not practical or necessary; it is quick, efficient and safe.
Join Date: Sep 2000
Location: Second star on the left
Posts: 124
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
A double strop is probably a good solution but then again maybe not if the stretcher is rulled because of trees. I have used strops, that come in different lengths without crotch straps for 30 years without a problem so realistically a single strop should have been no problem assuming that it is correctly placed.
We lift people a similar distance from the road because the terrain is too difficult to be carried over leading to a greater probability of further injury from the rescuer falling over and dropping the casualty.
Bottom line is that you cannot critisize what the guys did going on the information in this report, you have to be there I guess. Without seeing the clearing, how the strop was placed or what the casualty did during the winching, it is unfair to judge; but of course some will.
Flying helicopters can be dangerous, winching is always dangerous, it is just balancing the risk against the gain that is the tricky bit. I feel sorry for the crew because someone will use 20/20 hindsight against them.
Heads Down, look out for the flack.
We lift people a similar distance from the road because the terrain is too difficult to be carried over leading to a greater probability of further injury from the rescuer falling over and dropping the casualty.
Bottom line is that you cannot critisize what the guys did going on the information in this report, you have to be there I guess. Without seeing the clearing, how the strop was placed or what the casualty did during the winching, it is unfair to judge; but of course some will.
Flying helicopters can be dangerous, winching is always dangerous, it is just balancing the risk against the gain that is the tricky bit. I feel sorry for the crew because someone will use 20/20 hindsight against them.
Heads Down, look out for the flack.
Cabe le cutter is right (he taught me all I know
) we used a bosun's chair to lift a casualty through trees a couple of weeks ago because a stretcher lift just wasn't possible and the casualty's injuries (ribs and dislocated shoulder) precluded using a double strop lift. Judicious use of hi-lines helped stabilise the winchman and casualty (good as long as you have someone on the ground to assist) during the winching process.
) we used a bosun's chair to lift a casualty through trees a couple of weeks ago because a stretcher lift just wasn't possible and the casualty's injuries (ribs and dislocated shoulder) precluded using a double strop lift. Judicious use of hi-lines helped stabilise the winchman and casualty (good as long as you have someone on the ground to assist) during the winching process.
Join Date: Sep 2000
Location: Second star on the left
Posts: 124
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Thanks Crab,I think. 
You realise that I cannot go out in public since you said that. None of my "civilian" helicopter friends will talk to me any more.
Heads Down, look out for the Flack
You realise that I cannot go out in public since you said that. None of my "civilian" helicopter friends will talk to me any more.Heads Down, look out for the Flack
Thread Starter
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: Near the beach
Age: 63
Posts: 61
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Thanks for the feedback
Apologies for the slow response, nonetheless thanks for the feedback. The boson’s chair lift is one I’ve never heard of for helicopter operations, but certainly demonstrates lateral thinking given the injuries and location described. Is it a standard piece of equipment carried on your machines?
To the specifics of my initial questions, I note three experienced people with three variables to their answers:
Ausierob – need for a crotch strap.
Crab – two strops would have been more comfortable / prevented shock / quick efficient and safe.
Cabe – probably a good solution, but a single strop placed correctly should not have been a problem.
Supplementary questions, primarily for Cabe:
1. Of the occasions you have undertaken single strop rescues, how many of these did the rescuer attached to the winch hook elect to wear a single strop in preference to a harness?
2. If it were possible to find those people you have rescued in a single strop over the years and explain to them the benefits of two strops (see Crab’s comments) would they, do you think, be happy with just a single strop if ever winched over land again?
3. In the context of in-depth-barrier-defence and risk management, is use of a single strop appropriate? Again, see Crab’s comments.
Cabe/Crab – I acknowledge that we do not know whether this fracture was complicated and therefore do not know whether circulatory issues may have necessitated a more expeditious winch over a land evacuation. However, we do know that post incident the body was recovered by stretcher to the identified road by ground teams in approximately 1.5hrs (reported in Australian media) without rescuer injury. Also, we do know that there was at least five hours of daylight when the decision to winch was made. Therefore, can I please redirect you to my first question and ask for more detailed rationale to support a high winch (for a broken ankle) in this scenario?
Crab – was the height limit removed from both military and civil operations in the UK? Either way, do you have any relevant documentation that supports the reversal, and are you able to share it? Because essentially I believe that the Australian 15’ training limit, whilst implemented as a safety measure after a winching fatality, is actually a hindrance to operational safety, especially as experience leaves our industry.
Again, please do not see this as an attack on the crew.
To the specifics of my initial questions, I note three experienced people with three variables to their answers:
Ausierob – need for a crotch strap.
Crab – two strops would have been more comfortable / prevented shock / quick efficient and safe.
Cabe – probably a good solution, but a single strop placed correctly should not have been a problem.
Supplementary questions, primarily for Cabe:
1. Of the occasions you have undertaken single strop rescues, how many of these did the rescuer attached to the winch hook elect to wear a single strop in preference to a harness?
2. If it were possible to find those people you have rescued in a single strop over the years and explain to them the benefits of two strops (see Crab’s comments) would they, do you think, be happy with just a single strop if ever winched over land again?
3. In the context of in-depth-barrier-defence and risk management, is use of a single strop appropriate? Again, see Crab’s comments.
Cabe/Crab – I acknowledge that we do not know whether this fracture was complicated and therefore do not know whether circulatory issues may have necessitated a more expeditious winch over a land evacuation. However, we do know that post incident the body was recovered by stretcher to the identified road by ground teams in approximately 1.5hrs (reported in Australian media) without rescuer injury. Also, we do know that there was at least five hours of daylight when the decision to winch was made. Therefore, can I please redirect you to my first question and ask for more detailed rationale to support a high winch (for a broken ankle) in this scenario?
Crab – was the height limit removed from both military and civil operations in the UK? Either way, do you have any relevant documentation that supports the reversal, and are you able to share it? Because essentially I believe that the Australian 15’ training limit, whilst implemented as a safety measure after a winching fatality, is actually a hindrance to operational safety, especially as experience leaves our industry.
Again, please do not see this as an attack on the crew.
Last edited by Treg; 19th Oct 2013 at 06:31.
However, we do know that post incident the body was recovered by stretcher to the identified road by ground teams in approximately 1.5hrs (reported in Australian media) without rescuer injury. Also, we do know that there was at least five hours of daylight when the decision to winch was made. Therefore, can I please redirect you to my first question and ask for more
I'm not familiar with the current strops in use but a long time ago we had a simple loop around both ends of the strop at the hook which was then pulled down to the patient's chest and was effectively locked in place by the sideways pull on the strop itself. I can only assume this is no longer possible with the design of modern strops?
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Monde
Posts: 368
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
John
Nothing has changed, the basic design of the strop is as you describe.
Aussie Rob
Plenty of people are rescued using a single strop in the vertical position. It may be that they're hoisted from a position where placing a second strop is either challenging, impossible or would unnecessarily prolong the time required for the helicopter to be in what may be a challenging overhead. Alternatively, there may be obstructions or protrusions (eg from a vessel which is pitching and rolling on the high seas) which make the casualty more vulnerable being winched in the seated position. Furthermore, if there are multiple casualties to be retrieved then you're at least doubling the length of the winching evolution if you hoist each one individually in the seated position.
I hope this satisfactorily answers the 'what would possess' comment regarding the non-use of a crotch strap or second strop.
Nothing has changed, the basic design of the strop is as you describe.
Aussie Rob
Plenty of people are rescued using a single strop in the vertical position. It may be that they're hoisted from a position where placing a second strop is either challenging, impossible or would unnecessarily prolong the time required for the helicopter to be in what may be a challenging overhead. Alternatively, there may be obstructions or protrusions (eg from a vessel which is pitching and rolling on the high seas) which make the casualty more vulnerable being winched in the seated position. Furthermore, if there are multiple casualties to be retrieved then you're at least doubling the length of the winching evolution if you hoist each one individually in the seated position.
I hope this satisfactorily answers the 'what would possess' comment regarding the non-use of a crotch strap or second strop.
Thread Starter
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: Near the beach
Age: 63
Posts: 61
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
"...On arrival the crew noted that some trees had been cleared to create a larger winching area and that the patient had been moved to this area..."
John, do you happen to know who the ground party consisted of at the time of the winch operation? Also, do you know how they moved the casualty and the distance he was moved. I have worked with the SES previously and if they have "cleared" some trees to create a larger winching area it would suggest they were well equipped.
John, do you happen to know who the ground party consisted of at the time of the winch operation? Also, do you know how they moved the casualty and the distance he was moved. I have worked with the SES previously and if they have "cleared" some trees to create a larger winching area it would suggest they were well equipped.
No, I've no idea who felled the trees. The SES (if they were there) may have been a small team compared to the organised evolution that was specifically sent to retrieve the body, but we're debating something that may be a red herring.
I would trust AAV to have made the correct decision based on the circumstances, plus the crew on the spot would have the final go/no go say in carrying out the hoist. They are the professionals and Monday morning umpiring should be on specifics, not finding fault in decision making by those who were there at the time, possibly with a different knowledge to what we have now.
I would trust AAV to have made the correct decision based on the circumstances, plus the crew on the spot would have the final go/no go say in carrying out the hoist. They are the professionals and Monday morning umpiring should be on specifics, not finding fault in decision making by those who were there at the time, possibly with a different knowledge to what we have now.
Thread Starter
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: Near the beach
Age: 63
Posts: 61
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
John, I am concerned that further discussion on the merits of winching for this scenario will produce stronger derogatory labels than "monday morning umpiring", but as this is the second fatal winching accident in Australia in recent history I would like to continue the debate in the interest of maximising safety for future casualties/crews.
Therefore, with regard to winching in this instance the ATSB states:
"...In this context the size, weight and medical condition of the person(s) being winched may indicate that other recovery options offer reduced risk..."
The most likely 'other recovery option' for this scenario IMO would have been a double strop lift i.e. a casualty with a broken ankle is likely sitting or lying flat anyway and therefore placement of two strops would be achievable without undue risk to aircraft, crew or casualty.
A genuine question for all: if a loved one of yours sustained similar injury and there was no alternative but to conduct a high winch, would you recommend a single or double strop winch?
Additionally, should crews that only practice live winching at height not above 15', in an area where forced landing must be achievable, be tasked to conduct high winches over steep and heavily treed terrain?
Therefore, with regard to winching in this instance the ATSB states:
"...In this context the size, weight and medical condition of the person(s) being winched may indicate that other recovery options offer reduced risk..."
The most likely 'other recovery option' for this scenario IMO would have been a double strop lift i.e. a casualty with a broken ankle is likely sitting or lying flat anyway and therefore placement of two strops would be achievable without undue risk to aircraft, crew or casualty.
A genuine question for all: if a loved one of yours sustained similar injury and there was no alternative but to conduct a high winch, would you recommend a single or double strop winch?
Additionally, should crews that only practice live winching at height not above 15', in an area where forced landing must be achievable, be tasked to conduct high winches over steep and heavily treed terrain?
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: On the move...
Age: 58
Posts: 358
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Treg, in the original news articles there was mention of this gents size, I can't recall the alleged weight, about the 130 kilos I believe.
Now, without trying too much speculating about this scenario directly, does size / weight play an issue with winching? Does this restrict the options?
I have never been involved with winching, it is just a question generally.
Now, without trying too much speculating about this scenario directly, does size / weight play an issue with winching? Does this restrict the options?
I have never been involved with winching, it is just a question generally.
Treg, the bosun's chair is standard equipment for UK SAR winchmen and has been around for many, many years. It is essentially a seat/nappy harness that puts the winchman in a half-seated position when on the wire and is much more comfortable than using a strop.
double strop every time, it is much more comfortable, especially for the larger person. Our strops have a 300lb limit so the 130kg (286lb) casualty would come very close - using 2 strops spreads the weight and allows winching of bariatric (read fat!) casualties.
that is a question for those who pay for this service - is it reasonable to ask crews to perform rescues that they don't train for? Appropriate training is the only way to mitigate the risks involved so you either take some risks in training or leave it all to the real rescues and then wonder why you have incidents.
There is always some value in analyzing incidents such as this but 20/20 hindsight is usually too harsh when questioning the decisions of the crew on the day. They had to make the calls based on the situation they faced with the information they had - that is the nature of SAR.
A genuine question for all: if a loved one of yours sustained similar injury and there was no alternative but to conduct a high winch, would you recommend a single or double strop winch?
Additionally, should crews that only practice live winching at height not above 15', in an area where forced landing must be achievable, be tasked to conduct high winches over steep and heavily treed terrain?
There is always some value in analyzing incidents such as this but 20/20 hindsight is usually too harsh when questioning the decisions of the crew on the day. They had to make the calls based on the situation they faced with the information they had - that is the nature of SAR.
Thread Starter
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: Near the beach
Age: 63
Posts: 61
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
CYHeli, a strop is fitted under the shoulders and high up the back for maximum comfort. However, the longer someone is suspended the less comfort their is, and the greater the weight pulling down on the shoulders will increase the level of discomfort.
Thanks Crab, I am familiar with the 'nappy' style harness but guess I must be one of the few yet to hear it described as a bosun's chair. I picture a wooden seat with rope rigging as used by a 'bosun' for painting the side of a ship, hence my standard equipment question.
I agree that analysis with the benefit of hindsight can be seen as an ignorant smear on those faced with eyes on decisions associated with real-world operations. But as previously stated, my intent is not to condemn the crew, but to evaluate the bigger picture process of SAR training and operations in Australia. And for the record, I know what it is like to be judged after a SAR task has gone wrong, despite repeated requests for greater training and equipment falling on deaf ears.
Thanks Crab, I am familiar with the 'nappy' style harness but guess I must be one of the few yet to hear it described as a bosun's chair. I picture a wooden seat with rope rigging as used by a 'bosun' for painting the side of a ship, hence my standard equipment question.
I agree that analysis with the benefit of hindsight can be seen as an ignorant smear on those faced with eyes on decisions associated with real-world operations. But as previously stated, my intent is not to condemn the crew, but to evaluate the bigger picture process of SAR training and operations in Australia. And for the record, I know what it is like to be judged after a SAR task has gone wrong, despite repeated requests for greater training and equipment falling on deaf ears.
It may be worth considering that the single strop, and several of the alternatives, leaves aspects of the rescued person's safety in their own hands.
Well, hopefully, this poor chap's death might provide the ammunition to change the operator's/authorities' minds.
In a world run by bean counters who won't listen to common sense, sometimes you have to wait for an accident to prove your point - then the fear of litigation gets to them and they realise another incident might cost them even more money - not a good way to do business but that seems to be where we are.
In a world run by bean counters who won't listen to common sense, sometimes you have to wait for an accident to prove your point - then the fear of litigation gets to them and they realise another incident might cost them even more money - not a good way to do business but that seems to be where we are.
Thread Starter
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: Near the beach
Age: 63
Posts: 61
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Crab, the optimistic side of me hopes you are right, but with no specific mention of a review of overland training height restrictions in the ATSB 'Further Investigation' and 'Safety Action' sections I am not sure change will occur this time around. Although this statement might be positive:
"...Although no organisational or system issues have been identified at this time..." (my emphasis)
Thanks to all for your input. Unless there is a specific area someone wishes to discuss I will wait for the final report before further comment.
"...Although no organisational or system issues have been identified at this time..." (my emphasis)
Thanks to all for your input. Unless there is a specific area someone wishes to discuss I will wait for the final report before further comment.
Rescue equipment
Would it not be a good idea if someone on a current UK SAR flight could post some pics of the rescue equipment in use, as they say a picture is worth .......
By the way, before the disastrous Fastnet Race in 1979, most rescues that did not need a stretcher were safely accomplished using a single NATO strop. The later demise of some casualties removed from the water during the race was suspected to have been caused by them being lifted vertically hence the subsequent use of a 6 foot length of webbing (extension lead) under the knees which was soon replaced by the second strop.
We also carried a longer version of the NATO strop for the larger cas but I'm not sure if this is the case now but with the current obesity problem I don't think even that would suffice in a lot of cases!
By the way, before the disastrous Fastnet Race in 1979, most rescues that did not need a stretcher were safely accomplished using a single NATO strop. The later demise of some casualties removed from the water during the race was suspected to have been caused by them being lifted vertically hence the subsequent use of a 6 foot length of webbing (extension lead) under the knees which was soon replaced by the second strop.
We also carried a longer version of the NATO strop for the larger cas but I'm not sure if this is the case now but with the current obesity problem I don't think even that would suffice in a lot of cases!
osb,
The issue of overweight casualties was raised by the Noggies at the IntSAR competition in 1972; the exchange of ideas and experiences by all NATO SAR operators was as much an outcome of the IntSAR as the competition itself. During the conference the problem of hypothermic casualties was also raised with the results that you mention, albeit some years apart. Larger strops were certainly due to the shared experiences of IntSAR.
It's all a learning experience, but sadly some lessons have to be 're-learnt' over the years.
The issue of overweight casualties was raised by the Noggies at the IntSAR competition in 1972; the exchange of ideas and experiences by all NATO SAR operators was as much an outcome of the IntSAR as the competition itself. During the conference the problem of hypothermic casualties was also raised with the results that you mention, albeit some years apart. Larger strops were certainly due to the shared experiences of IntSAR.
It's all a learning experience, but sadly some lessons have to be 're-learnt' over the years.