Hospital Wing AS350B3 accident in Tennessee
Thread Starter
Hospital Wing AS350B3 accident in Tennessee
FAYETTE COUNTY, TN (WMC-TV) – There are reports of a medical helicopter crash in Fayette County. The crash happened along Highway 64 near the intersection of Doll Way, close to the Methodist Fayette Hospital in Somerville.
Reports are that the helicopter in on fire. We do know that there was not a patient on board, but we don't know the extent of any injuries.
Reports are that the helicopter in on fire. We do know that there was not a patient on board, but we don't know the extent of any injuries.
Thread Starter
More news coming in from the US .. sadly the news is tragic. 
3 killed in medical helicopter crash near Somerville » The Commercial Appeal
https://www.hospitalwing.com/aircraft.html
While standing outside early Tuesday morning taking a break, Janice Proctor heard a helicopter and saw its lights in the darkened sky.
At the time, Proctor – an employee at the Teague convenience store – thought the helicopter was flying low, but didn't think too much else about it.
Barely 20 minutes later, officials said, that helicopter plummeted into a thickly wooded area about a mile south of the Fayette Academy on Highway 64 in Somerville.
The medical helicopter from Hospital Wing of Memphis virtually disintegrated on impact, said officials who saw the crash site. Three people on board – a pilot and two employees of Le Bonheur Children's Hospital – were killed in the crash.
"I was going out the back down here to take my break. I heard it going over. It was dark. I saw the light from the helicopter," Proctor said. "It was pretty low."
At the time, Proctor – an employee at the Teague convenience store – thought the helicopter was flying low, but didn't think too much else about it.
Barely 20 minutes later, officials said, that helicopter plummeted into a thickly wooded area about a mile south of the Fayette Academy on Highway 64 in Somerville.
The medical helicopter from Hospital Wing of Memphis virtually disintegrated on impact, said officials who saw the crash site. Three people on board – a pilot and two employees of Le Bonheur Children's Hospital – were killed in the crash.
"I was going out the back down here to take my break. I heard it going over. It was dark. I saw the light from the helicopter," Proctor said. "It was pretty low."
https://www.hospitalwing.com/aircraft.html
Hospital Wing AS350B3 accident in Tennessee
An AS350B3 operated by Hospital Wing went down early this morning about 50 miles from Memphis, sadly killing the pilot, a nurse and a respiratory therapist on board. Our thoughts are obviously wtih the relatives of those three and anyone else caught up by this situation. They were on their way to pick up a pediatric patient with renal failure, and he is OK after making a road trip to a specialist medical center.
Non-aviation witness, as written up by non-aviation media, reported as "hearing a helicopter and saw its lights in the darkened sky...." and ".... thought the helicopter was flying low, but didn't think too much else about it."
3 killed in medical helicopter crash near Somerville » The Commercial Appeal
Pilot, nurse, respiratory therapist killed in helicopter crash - Action News 5 - Memphis, Tennessee
Non-aviation witness, as written up by non-aviation media, reported as "hearing a helicopter and saw its lights in the darkened sky...." and ".... thought the helicopter was flying low, but didn't think too much else about it."
3 killed in medical helicopter crash near Somerville » The Commercial Appeal
Pilot, nurse, respiratory therapist killed in helicopter crash - Action News 5 - Memphis, Tennessee
Last edited by helihub; 22nd Oct 2013 at 16:31.
Statement just received from Le Bonheur Children’s Hospital where the helicopter was flying to at the time of the incident
Today, Oct. 22, around 6:20 a.m. we received reports that we had not received regular contact from a Hospital Wing helicopter flying to pick up a patient in Bolivar, Tenn.
It was later confirmed that the helicopter was down in Fayette County. There was NOT a patient on board. There were two Le Bonheur Children’s Hospital personnel on board along with a Hospital Wing pilot.
The local sheriff’s department, NTSB and the FAA have been notified and a preliminary investigation is underway.
Today, Oct. 22, around 6:20 a.m. we received reports that we had not received regular contact from a Hospital Wing helicopter flying to pick up a patient in Bolivar, Tenn.
It was later confirmed that the helicopter was down in Fayette County. There was NOT a patient on board. There were two Le Bonheur Children’s Hospital personnel on board along with a Hospital Wing pilot.
The local sheriff’s department, NTSB and the FAA have been notified and a preliminary investigation is underway.
"Just a pilot"
METAR from closest reporting point to departure note local (CDT) is 5 hours behind
METAR KMEM 220654Z 36003KT 9SM BKN008 OVC070 13/12 A3005 RMK AO2 RAE11B33E44 SLP174 P0000 T01330117
SPECI KMEM 220719Z 36003KT 9SM -RA BKN010 OVC075 13/12 A3006 RMK AO2 RAB0658 P0000
SPECI KMEM 220734Z 01007KT 9SM -RA OVC008 13/12 A3005 RMK AO2 RAB0658 CIG 006V012 P0000
SPECI KMEM 220750Z 01006KT 9SM -RA SCT008 BKN018 OVC080 13/11 A3005 RMK AO2 RAB0658 P0000
METAR KMEM 220754Z 36007KT 9SM -RA FEW008 BKN018 OVC080 13/11 A3005 RMK AO2 RAB0658 SLP173 P0000 T01280111
SPECI KMEM 220806Z 35008KT 10SM FEW008 SCT018 OVC080 13/11 A3005 RMK AO2 RAE0756 P0000
METAR KMEM 220854Z 01008KT 10SM FEW011 SCT050 OVC060 12/09 A3004 RMK AO2 RAE0756 SLP171 P0000 60000 T01220094 58003
METAR KMEM 220954Z 01008KT 10SM FEW012 BKN047 OVC065 12/09 A3004 RMK AO2 SLP171 T01220094
METAR KMEM 221054Z 01007KT 10SM FEW012 SCT047 OVC055 12/09 A3005 RMK AO2 SLP174 T01170089
METAR KMEM 221154Z 07005KT 10SM FEW015 BKN040 12/08 A3006 RMK AO2 SLP175 60000 70006 T01170083 10133 20117 53004
Source:
Weather History for Memphis, TN | Weather Underground
Estimate takeoff an hour twenty minutes before dawn, Easterly track.
SPECI KMEM 220719Z 36003KT 9SM -RA BKN010 OVC075 13/12 A3006 RMK AO2 RAB0658 P0000
SPECI KMEM 220734Z 01007KT 9SM -RA OVC008 13/12 A3005 RMK AO2 RAB0658 CIG 006V012 P0000
SPECI KMEM 220750Z 01006KT 9SM -RA SCT008 BKN018 OVC080 13/11 A3005 RMK AO2 RAB0658 P0000
METAR KMEM 220754Z 36007KT 9SM -RA FEW008 BKN018 OVC080 13/11 A3005 RMK AO2 RAB0658 SLP173 P0000 T01280111
SPECI KMEM 220806Z 35008KT 10SM FEW008 SCT018 OVC080 13/11 A3005 RMK AO2 RAE0756 P0000
METAR KMEM 220854Z 01008KT 10SM FEW011 SCT050 OVC060 12/09 A3004 RMK AO2 RAE0756 SLP171 P0000 60000 T01220094 58003
METAR KMEM 220954Z 01008KT 10SM FEW012 BKN047 OVC065 12/09 A3004 RMK AO2 SLP171 T01220094
METAR KMEM 221054Z 01007KT 10SM FEW012 SCT047 OVC055 12/09 A3005 RMK AO2 SLP174 T01170089
METAR KMEM 221154Z 07005KT 10SM FEW015 BKN040 12/08 A3006 RMK AO2 SLP175 60000 70006 T01170083 10133 20117 53004
Source:
Weather History for Memphis, TN | Weather Underground
Estimate takeoff an hour twenty minutes before dawn, Easterly track.
Last edited by Devil 49; 23rd Oct 2013 at 14:49.
Thread Starter
MEMPHIS, Tenn. - When Hospital Wing celebrated its 20th anniversary, the air ambulance chairman said, "We've never had an accident. It makes me nervous just saying it."
Since Dr. Bruce Steinhauer made that statement to The Commercial Appeal in 2006, the Memphis-based air ambulance service has experienced two fatal accidents that killed a total of six people.
The crash Tuesday near Somerville, Tenn., that took the lives of the pilot, a nurse and a respiratory therapist pushes the U.S. toll for air-ambulance fatalities so far this year to 12. It's the first time such deaths have reached double digits since 2010 when 16 people died.
Since Dr. Bruce Steinhauer made that statement to The Commercial Appeal in 2006, the Memphis-based air ambulance service has experienced two fatal accidents that killed a total of six people.
The crash Tuesday near Somerville, Tenn., that took the lives of the pilot, a nurse and a respiratory therapist pushes the U.S. toll for air-ambulance fatalities so far this year to 12. It's the first time such deaths have reached double digits since 2010 when 16 people died.
...and the patient was later safely transported by ground ambulance. Does anyone else find a degree of irony in this? Why not use the wheels first and save the helicopter and crews from unnecessary exposure to harm.
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: USA
Posts: 336
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Gemini Twin,
Being in the industry ,I would be the first to admit that our safety record is appalling and even one accident is one too many.However, I do find your comment a trifle naive.Firstly, there is already a tussle going on between different groups (physicians, hospital ER s , ground ambulance crews etc) as to when and how a helicopter is requested.There are strict guidelines and protocols and these are dynamic.They are being revised and updated constantly. There is an element of location, hospital capabilities, ambulance crew capabilities etc that determine a lot of transports. So, in short, someone has to make that decision and sometimes that decision is right sometimes wrong.It is not a perfect system but it is the best we have, to date.
Secondly, all of us ,pilots, nurses,medics and RTs get into this industry knowing the risks. We try to mitigate the risks by various means but, none of us is under the illusion that this is a risky (not dangerous) business and "exposure to harm" comes with the territory. Those who can't handle it leave.Those who stay know the risks, and ,for the most part, work hard to reduce them.
I wonder why you "expose yourself to harm" every night when you get into bed? After all, haven't you heard, people die in their sleep all the time!
Alt3.
Being in the industry ,I would be the first to admit that our safety record is appalling and even one accident is one too many.However, I do find your comment a trifle naive.Firstly, there is already a tussle going on between different groups (physicians, hospital ER s , ground ambulance crews etc) as to when and how a helicopter is requested.There are strict guidelines and protocols and these are dynamic.They are being revised and updated constantly. There is an element of location, hospital capabilities, ambulance crew capabilities etc that determine a lot of transports. So, in short, someone has to make that decision and sometimes that decision is right sometimes wrong.It is not a perfect system but it is the best we have, to date.
Secondly, all of us ,pilots, nurses,medics and RTs get into this industry knowing the risks. We try to mitigate the risks by various means but, none of us is under the illusion that this is a risky (not dangerous) business and "exposure to harm" comes with the territory. Those who can't handle it leave.Those who stay know the risks, and ,for the most part, work hard to reduce them.
I wonder why you "expose yourself to harm" every night when you get into bed? After all, haven't you heard, people die in their sleep all the time!
Alt3.
Last edited by alouette3; 24th Oct 2013 at 23:43.
Gemini Twin / Alouette 3
As often is the case, both arguments have validity and the truth is not that simple.
There is no doubt the string of US EMS accidents should not continue. I dont accept, having worked on these systems, that pilots let alone medical staff sign up for the level of risk involved.
However, many transfers are from small community hospitals with very basic levels of medical capability by European standards. In addition the US courts system judges negligence not by the standard a normal group of doctors would provide but by the highest standard that can be provided. Third there are financial pressures to transfer early rather than later.
The protocols are varied and we do not know the protocols nor the individual clinical details in this case or in the case of many accidents. What I find so numbing is that we were having these discussions in the 1980s
It would be interesting to do a retrospective study on the clinical need in the case of the last 100 accidents and a matched pair review of patient outcome. A number of US states have the ability to do this but I have never seen one. We cant turn back the clock for these poor individuals but it would be nice to see a downturn in EMS accidents
As often is the case, both arguments have validity and the truth is not that simple.
There is no doubt the string of US EMS accidents should not continue. I dont accept, having worked on these systems, that pilots let alone medical staff sign up for the level of risk involved.
However, many transfers are from small community hospitals with very basic levels of medical capability by European standards. In addition the US courts system judges negligence not by the standard a normal group of doctors would provide but by the highest standard that can be provided. Third there are financial pressures to transfer early rather than later.
The protocols are varied and we do not know the protocols nor the individual clinical details in this case or in the case of many accidents. What I find so numbing is that we were having these discussions in the 1980s
It would be interesting to do a retrospective study on the clinical need in the case of the last 100 accidents and a matched pair review of patient outcome. A number of US states have the ability to do this but I have never seen one. We cant turn back the clock for these poor individuals but it would be nice to see a downturn in EMS accidents
Alouette 3 sorry that you found my thought naive but sometimes it easier to cut through the "revised and updated guidelines and protocols" and ask my basic simple question.
There have been many cases were after an accident a patient has been transport by an ambulance. One case I remember well, was after a patient was removed from a wreck A109 at St Peters he travelled to the destination hospital by ground transport. Studying similar cases (and there are quite a few) it would seem that these "guide lines and protocols" may need further revision and updates. Again sorry this may also sound naive, but it's just another thought
As homonculas states, we have been discussing this issue since the 1980's and not an awful lot has changed.
Also I do fully realize that "exposure to harm" comes with the territory, as you put, it is ever present, but please notice I said UNNECESSARY exposure to harm. One extra word makes quite a difference.
To quote our friend VF, Happy landings all ways.
There have been many cases were after an accident a patient has been transport by an ambulance. One case I remember well, was after a patient was removed from a wreck A109 at St Peters he travelled to the destination hospital by ground transport. Studying similar cases (and there are quite a few) it would seem that these "guide lines and protocols" may need further revision and updates. Again sorry this may also sound naive, but it's just another thought
As homonculas states, we have been discussing this issue since the 1980's and not an awful lot has changed.
Also I do fully realize that "exposure to harm" comes with the territory, as you put, it is ever present, but please notice I said UNNECESSARY exposure to harm. One extra word makes quite a difference.
To quote our friend VF, Happy landings all ways.
Last edited by Gemini Twin; 25th Oct 2013 at 19:58.
Having worked in remote areas of the southwest and southeast United States we experienced many situations where the decision to utilize the helicopter was not determined based on specific established protocols or patients medical needs but rather on the requirement for continuous availability of local ground EMS support in the area. As an example, utilizing ground transport from White River, AZ to either Phoenix or Tucson removes the local EMS unit (first responders) from the area for as much a 16 hours. That was coverage they could not afford to lose on a Saturday evening.
You're right Jack, any system ought to be adaptive to the situation. My memory of the incident at St Pete's was not quite correct. The patient had been transported to Olympia from Grays Harbor by ambulance and than transferred to the helicopter to continue the trip to Seattle. The accident occurred on TO from the hospital helipad and the patient was wheeled into the emergency room and admitted St Peters for further treatment. Fortunately none of the helicopter crew of three was badly injured.
Last edited by Gemini Twin; 25th Oct 2013 at 20:47.
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: In the desert southwest
Posts: 181
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
trying
Dear Gemini Twin,
I am trying to understand the logic of your argument. Let me put in my thoughts and see what you think.
If someone in my family was injured etc and needed transport to a higher level of care and the medical experts first best choice was a helicopter, then that is what I would choose. If for any reason the helicopter could not complete the transport, I hope to goodness the medical people would put my loved one in an ambulance if they felt that the time spent in the ambulance was acceptable to the medical condition of their patient.
Yes, the people involved in the particular situations you cite were eventually transported by ground. Why wouldn't they be? That was the next best option.
I get a sense that your argument is that if there is ground transport then that should be the first option taken in any situation. In many regions of the country where I have flown EMS, the time it would take to ground transport would be 3-5 hours or more depending on traffic while the helo can make the trip in one. For example take a look at the drive from Parker or Lake Havasu City, Arizona to either Phoenix or Vegas. Yes there is risk, but hundreds and probably thousands of flights over these particular routes have been flown over many years, both day and night with great success. There are many areas of the U.S. where helo transport makes absolutely the best choice for the welfare of the patient when time is critical.
Is there room for improvement? Of course. Ground transport should be considered as the best alternative when time is not critical. In medicine, time is nearly always a crucial factor when considering transferring a patient to a higher level of care.
Cheers
I am trying to understand the logic of your argument. Let me put in my thoughts and see what you think.
If someone in my family was injured etc and needed transport to a higher level of care and the medical experts first best choice was a helicopter, then that is what I would choose. If for any reason the helicopter could not complete the transport, I hope to goodness the medical people would put my loved one in an ambulance if they felt that the time spent in the ambulance was acceptable to the medical condition of their patient.
Yes, the people involved in the particular situations you cite were eventually transported by ground. Why wouldn't they be? That was the next best option.
I get a sense that your argument is that if there is ground transport then that should be the first option taken in any situation. In many regions of the country where I have flown EMS, the time it would take to ground transport would be 3-5 hours or more depending on traffic while the helo can make the trip in one. For example take a look at the drive from Parker or Lake Havasu City, Arizona to either Phoenix or Vegas. Yes there is risk, but hundreds and probably thousands of flights over these particular routes have been flown over many years, both day and night with great success. There are many areas of the U.S. where helo transport makes absolutely the best choice for the welfare of the patient when time is critical.
Is there room for improvement? Of course. Ground transport should be considered as the best alternative when time is not critical. In medicine, time is nearly always a crucial factor when considering transferring a patient to a higher level of care.
Cheers
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: USA
Posts: 336
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I think this is a worthwhile discussion,despite the differing views.
Gemini, as you see, there are many, many reasons for a helicopter transport beyond the condition of a patient.As to that latter issue, who decides what benefits or does not? The patient, the family, the doctors, the flight crew? In our litigious society, in whose hands would you leave the decision? And when I say you, I mean you, personally.Give me a workable solution not a philosophical idea that does not resolve the issue. As the Russians say, the best is the enemy of good.The best solution is to have optimum numbers of helicopters, twin,IFR ,two pilot and flying almost a scheduled operation by day only.What we have is neither the best nor optimum.But ,it works.
It is a known fact that for every flight that ends tragically, there are hundreds and thousands completed safely and routinely.If 95 % of those patients flown did not need a helicopter, that is the way it is, today. But, if 5% are helped or whose outcomes are positive, then this is a worthwhile endeavor.After all, nomne of us is sure whether we ourselves or our family members may end up in that 5% someday.
It is up to all of us,crews, pilots, operators, regulators and customers, to make sure the system is used and not abused and risks are either eliminated or mitigated to manageable proportions.
Fly safe and happy landings!
Alt3.
Gemini, as you see, there are many, many reasons for a helicopter transport beyond the condition of a patient.As to that latter issue, who decides what benefits or does not? The patient, the family, the doctors, the flight crew? In our litigious society, in whose hands would you leave the decision? And when I say you, I mean you, personally.Give me a workable solution not a philosophical idea that does not resolve the issue. As the Russians say, the best is the enemy of good.The best solution is to have optimum numbers of helicopters, twin,IFR ,two pilot and flying almost a scheduled operation by day only.What we have is neither the best nor optimum.But ,it works.
It is a known fact that for every flight that ends tragically, there are hundreds and thousands completed safely and routinely.If 95 % of those patients flown did not need a helicopter, that is the way it is, today. But, if 5% are helped or whose outcomes are positive, then this is a worthwhile endeavor.After all, nomne of us is sure whether we ourselves or our family members may end up in that 5% someday.
It is up to all of us,crews, pilots, operators, regulators and customers, to make sure the system is used and not abused and risks are either eliminated or mitigated to manageable proportions.
Fly safe and happy landings!
Alt3.
Last edited by alouette3; 26th Oct 2013 at 15:25.
Join Date: Aug 2012
Location: Hassocks, Mid-Sussex
Age: 67
Posts: 278
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
How can operational tasking/scheduling/prioritisation be responsible for actual flight safety? Isn't one the responsibility of an operations director/manager/controller and the other the responsibility of the pilot in command of the aircraft?
Those who can't handle it leave.Those who stay know the risks, and ,for the most part, work hard to reduce them.
Grumpytroll
You make a good point. If the doctor says take your loved one by helicopter you sure will not argue. However the reason the doctor says use a helicopter is often due to defensive medicine. If there is a helicopter and he doesn't use it and the patient 'goes off' he might be sued. If the helicopter has an accident that isn't his problem.
In practice it is a little more complicated. Receiving hospitals may want to get e patient as early as possible for financial reasons. Using a helicopter may also increase the patient severity on which reimbursement is based. Some major centres are desperate for volume.
Whether or not the US use helicopters when they are not needed is not the issue - it is after all their money and they have to pay 18% of GDP on it. The issue is whether this indulgence results in a lower amount of ground transport and creates a vicious circle making helicopters more necessary, and second whether this dependence means that helicopters are used in marginal weather at night over poorly lit territory single pilot.
The US are now over funding community hospitals whereas systems such as Medicare often underfund urban hospitals - for example Medicare may only pay them cost less 30%. Together with telemedicine and mandatory continuing medical education, the desire to ship out everyone ASAP may abate. I for one will be happy.
You make a good point. If the doctor says take your loved one by helicopter you sure will not argue. However the reason the doctor says use a helicopter is often due to defensive medicine. If there is a helicopter and he doesn't use it and the patient 'goes off' he might be sued. If the helicopter has an accident that isn't his problem.
In practice it is a little more complicated. Receiving hospitals may want to get e patient as early as possible for financial reasons. Using a helicopter may also increase the patient severity on which reimbursement is based. Some major centres are desperate for volume.
Whether or not the US use helicopters when they are not needed is not the issue - it is after all their money and they have to pay 18% of GDP on it. The issue is whether this indulgence results in a lower amount of ground transport and creates a vicious circle making helicopters more necessary, and second whether this dependence means that helicopters are used in marginal weather at night over poorly lit territory single pilot.
The US are now over funding community hospitals whereas systems such as Medicare often underfund urban hospitals - for example Medicare may only pay them cost less 30%. Together with telemedicine and mandatory continuing medical education, the desire to ship out everyone ASAP may abate. I for one will be happy.