EC135 HEMS accident in Norway
Some discussion about air-ground comms in the Norwegian press.
Luftambulanse vet om sambandsvikt - NRK ? Norge
Politiet: Prøvde å advare piloten om høyspentledninger - fikk ikke kontakt - VG Nett om Luftfart
An ambulance forum states the NLA a/c have 6 radios and a mobile phone partly due to the changeover to the new comms system.
Luftambulanse vet om sambandsvikt - NRK ? Norge
Politiet: Prøvde å advare piloten om høyspentledninger - fikk ikke kontakt - VG Nett om Luftfart
An ambulance forum states the NLA a/c have 6 radios and a mobile phone partly due to the changeover to the new comms system.
Avoid imitations
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Wandering the FIR and cyberspace often at highly unsociable times
Posts: 14,573
Received 422 Likes
on
222 Posts
SAS, as is increasingly often the case these days, your ire against how "the Brits don't want to hear it" is largely unwarranted.
You seem to have forgotten the many previous discussions on this forum regarding safety issues surrounding the wisdom of allowing single pilot "mercy missions" by commercial enterprise in outdated, often unstabilised, VFR only machines, night and day, in the face of CFIT accidents on your home side of the pond.
That type of operation was legislated out in UK years ago after a safety review following similar accidents. You often complained about what you claim to be over-regulation by the CAA in this respect. Your argument has been that this must continue to be allowed in the USA, on the basis that financial / commercial constraints are paramount. You can't have it both ways, old chap!
We all know it's an imperfect world, especially when the funds and resources in general are constantly shrinking. Unfortunately the suit must be cut according to the cloth.
You seem to have forgotten the many previous discussions on this forum regarding safety issues surrounding the wisdom of allowing single pilot "mercy missions" by commercial enterprise in outdated, often unstabilised, VFR only machines, night and day, in the face of CFIT accidents on your home side of the pond.
That type of operation was legislated out in UK years ago after a safety review following similar accidents. You often complained about what you claim to be over-regulation by the CAA in this respect. Your argument has been that this must continue to be allowed in the USA, on the basis that financial / commercial constraints are paramount. You can't have it both ways, old chap!
We all know it's an imperfect world, especially when the funds and resources in general are constantly shrinking. Unfortunately the suit must be cut according to the cloth.
Shy.....when One begins speaking for others it is fraught with peril.
Read back through the posts and you shall find I am an advocate of twin engine, stabilized, Auto pilot equipped helicopters for EMS....on both sides of the great saltwater divide. I do point out that the current FAA Regulations allow for the use of Single Engine helicopters for Day and Night EMS work.
There is a huge difference in telling what the Law allows.....and endorsing those Regulations.
I very much supported the use of NVG's....when the FAA was not willing to act rapidly to field that technology. Now that they have....Operators are putting additional restrictions on their crews if NVG's are not being used for some reason.
You shall also see I have been one of the most ardent objectors to the FAA's former practice of allowing an EMS Operator to fly under Part 91 when not actually carrying a Patient.....thus reverting to a much lower standard for surface lighting by which to control the aircraft and weather minima.
The FAA has changed their position lately on that and now all EMS operations are required to be conducted under Part 135 which has a higher standard for Surface Lighting and Weather.
I have been very critical of the American system of EMS Operations re Safety.
Go back and do a search and see how many threads related to that I have started related to the topic....that alone would show I have been a proponent of change within the American system.
When NVG use was being advocated for the UK EMS operations....I suggested you learn from our experience in fielding that technology as we were further down that road than you. Far better you read about other's mistakes than repeat them yourself I would assume.
I was complimentary to other Nation's EMS systems....and until recently pointed out the success the Canadians were having although the situation at Ornge has caused that to be less appropriate. But there even, we see them taking important steps to improve the situation at off heliport landing sites.
You know that.....what you cannot abide is to have me criticize your system and point out aspects of it that would benefit from change or improvements.
Thus, your post very much misrepresents my views and past statements.
I have taken the position that you folks in the UK and EASA land have Rules that prevent the conduct of helicopter EMS operations at Night due to being over burdened with needless and arbitrary Rules.
We provide a 24 hour a day service.....with over 800 aircraft in the Helicopter Fleet doing EMS Work. With that amount of activity, we have seen the need to adapt, change, and improve what we do.
The Industry itself resisted the changes, the FAA surely did not come willingly to the party, the NTSB was slow to get behind the move for change, but we have improved the system.
The decrease in the accident rate proves that.
There are aspects of what we do that still is not as it should be.....but the situation is improving.
Have you done a fair, objective, critical analysis of the UK EMS system?
Care to share your findings with us?
Are you merely filling convenient niche needs....or are you providing a nationwide 24 hour a day EMS service for Emergency Medical Transportation and Seriously Ill Medical Patients?
Are there sufficient resources available to provide a 24 Hour service?
Is there a need for such a service?
Are EMS Operations adequately equipped to provide advanced life support services?
Are Ground Services trained and equipped to facilitate the use of EMS Helicopters?
Are Emergency Services, ground and air, properly equipped, trained, and proficient to effect communications during Helicopter EMS Operations?
Are there approved weather reporting facilities within the EMS Operation's Dispatch area sufficient to ensure accurate and timely weather reporting for use by Pilots in planning flights on short notice?
Is ATC capable of handling very short notice flights without risk of conflict or delay?
How long a list of questions do you want?
We cannot compare UK Ops to American Ops as they are being done in very different environments....physically, politically, and commercially....but the basics are the same.
I think the UK EMS system is no where near its potential yet and is hampered by a lack of support and budget. Germany and Norway seem to be leading the way in Europe.....perhaps in time the UK will catch up.
Read back through the posts and you shall find I am an advocate of twin engine, stabilized, Auto pilot equipped helicopters for EMS....on both sides of the great saltwater divide. I do point out that the current FAA Regulations allow for the use of Single Engine helicopters for Day and Night EMS work.
There is a huge difference in telling what the Law allows.....and endorsing those Regulations.
I very much supported the use of NVG's....when the FAA was not willing to act rapidly to field that technology. Now that they have....Operators are putting additional restrictions on their crews if NVG's are not being used for some reason.
You shall also see I have been one of the most ardent objectors to the FAA's former practice of allowing an EMS Operator to fly under Part 91 when not actually carrying a Patient.....thus reverting to a much lower standard for surface lighting by which to control the aircraft and weather minima.
The FAA has changed their position lately on that and now all EMS operations are required to be conducted under Part 135 which has a higher standard for Surface Lighting and Weather.
I have been very critical of the American system of EMS Operations re Safety.
Go back and do a search and see how many threads related to that I have started related to the topic....that alone would show I have been a proponent of change within the American system.
When NVG use was being advocated for the UK EMS operations....I suggested you learn from our experience in fielding that technology as we were further down that road than you. Far better you read about other's mistakes than repeat them yourself I would assume.
I was complimentary to other Nation's EMS systems....and until recently pointed out the success the Canadians were having although the situation at Ornge has caused that to be less appropriate. But there even, we see them taking important steps to improve the situation at off heliport landing sites.
You know that.....what you cannot abide is to have me criticize your system and point out aspects of it that would benefit from change or improvements.
Thus, your post very much misrepresents my views and past statements.
I have taken the position that you folks in the UK and EASA land have Rules that prevent the conduct of helicopter EMS operations at Night due to being over burdened with needless and arbitrary Rules.
We provide a 24 hour a day service.....with over 800 aircraft in the Helicopter Fleet doing EMS Work. With that amount of activity, we have seen the need to adapt, change, and improve what we do.
The Industry itself resisted the changes, the FAA surely did not come willingly to the party, the NTSB was slow to get behind the move for change, but we have improved the system.
The decrease in the accident rate proves that.
There are aspects of what we do that still is not as it should be.....but the situation is improving.
Have you done a fair, objective, critical analysis of the UK EMS system?
Care to share your findings with us?
Are you merely filling convenient niche needs....or are you providing a nationwide 24 hour a day EMS service for Emergency Medical Transportation and Seriously Ill Medical Patients?
Are there sufficient resources available to provide a 24 Hour service?
Is there a need for such a service?
Are EMS Operations adequately equipped to provide advanced life support services?
Are Ground Services trained and equipped to facilitate the use of EMS Helicopters?
Are Emergency Services, ground and air, properly equipped, trained, and proficient to effect communications during Helicopter EMS Operations?
Are there approved weather reporting facilities within the EMS Operation's Dispatch area sufficient to ensure accurate and timely weather reporting for use by Pilots in planning flights on short notice?
Is ATC capable of handling very short notice flights without risk of conflict or delay?
How long a list of questions do you want?
We cannot compare UK Ops to American Ops as they are being done in very different environments....physically, politically, and commercially....but the basics are the same.
I think the UK EMS system is no where near its potential yet and is hampered by a lack of support and budget. Germany and Norway seem to be leading the way in Europe.....perhaps in time the UK will catch up.
Last edited by SASless; 21st Jan 2014 at 12:38.
Purveyor of Egg Liqueur to Lucifer
I'm Spartacus!
Shy.....when One begins speaking for others it is fraught with peril.
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: UK
Posts: 291
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
SAS - not directed at you personally, just your country, since you're knocking ours (all friendly banter, of course!)
DON'T blame the Brits - all of this complete sh*t came from your side of the pond as a direct result of everyone taking out lawsuits against anyone & anything that just "might" have been the "responsibility" of someone else. The Brit lawyers have just put bells on the US game, such that a creeping culture of festering litigation (that only really benefits lawyers) has built up a frighteningly risk-averse management culture, forbidding anyone in their employ from making sensible decisions or being allowed to be responsible for their own actions. (I could write a book on Laws & Guidance for Idiots, written by A. Fool (anon!), starting with the guidance printed on the side of a 3kw electric paint-stripping gun bought in 1986 "not to be used as a hair-dryer" - I always thought that was for Americans!! )
Many of us (probably on both sides of the water?) are driven spare by the parasitic actions of the legal vultures who will swoop, at the first opportunity, to peck over the bones of any incident or accident. Most Emergency Service individuals (and many others) wish to help where possible, use initiative and do the best they can in the circumstances, especially when there might be risk to life. If it all goes well, the individual or group may be lauded as heros by the press BUT, back at base, the management (whether the result was positive or negative) will be champing at the bit to castigate the "heros" for breaking one miniscule paragraph of guidance or legislation that will have put their corporate liability at risk, and exposed their personal liability as a result. Whilst I'm not always a fan of the press, it's only a public campaign that's likely to save the individual, or group, from action or dismissal since, in most right-minded people's minds, "they did all they could to help, and more than most in the circumstances - thanks for doing your best".
Until and unless the legislators allow people to take responsibility for their own actions, recognise that people were doing what they could, for the right reasons and as sensibly as their skills & training allowed, and disallow some of the ridiculous claims that idiots make for their own ineptitude, it'll not get much better. Some need to grow up & recognise that, in many cases, Darwin was right - and the gene pool will benefit as a result. F
F S (emoticons more appropriate in this case than any other!)
Off thread a little, I know, but I'm not in favour of taking a sledgehammer to crack a nut - trained paramedic or Doctors eyes in the front seat are just as good as a second pilot, IMHO, for dealing with this tragic circumstance. At least in the 99.99+% of normal landings their other skills will be significantly more useful than a second pilot!
. . . they have HSE Policies that forbid Fire Brigade Rescue Staff from using equipment that might save a life if they have not been trained on it....letting an injured person die as a result.
But hey.....you know....Rules are Rules and all that old Chap. We had a thread on that as i recall....something about a poor sod who fell into a deep hole....an old well or something....who expired before he was gotten out because some Management Type forbid the fire crew from improvising lifting gear and requiring them to wait many hours . . .
But hey.....you know....Rules are Rules and all that old Chap. We had a thread on that as i recall....something about a poor sod who fell into a deep hole....an old well or something....who expired before he was gotten out because some Management Type forbid the fire crew from improvising lifting gear and requiring them to wait many hours . . .
Many of us (probably on both sides of the water?) are driven spare by the parasitic actions of the legal vultures who will swoop, at the first opportunity, to peck over the bones of any incident or accident. Most Emergency Service individuals (and many others) wish to help where possible, use initiative and do the best they can in the circumstances, especially when there might be risk to life. If it all goes well, the individual or group may be lauded as heros by the press BUT, back at base, the management (whether the result was positive or negative) will be champing at the bit to castigate the "heros" for breaking one miniscule paragraph of guidance or legislation that will have put their corporate liability at risk, and exposed their personal liability as a result. Whilst I'm not always a fan of the press, it's only a public campaign that's likely to save the individual, or group, from action or dismissal since, in most right-minded people's minds, "they did all they could to help, and more than most in the circumstances - thanks for doing your best".
Until and unless the legislators allow people to take responsibility for their own actions, recognise that people were doing what they could, for the right reasons and as sensibly as their skills & training allowed, and disallow some of the ridiculous claims that idiots make for their own ineptitude, it'll not get much better. Some need to grow up & recognise that, in many cases, Darwin was right - and the gene pool will benefit as a result. F
F S (emoticons more appropriate in this case than any other!)Off thread a little, I know, but I'm not in favour of taking a sledgehammer to crack a nut - trained paramedic or Doctors eyes in the front seat are just as good as a second pilot, IMHO, for dealing with this tragic circumstance. At least in the 99.99+% of normal landings their other skills will be significantly more useful than a second pilot!
No argument there Zorba....I believe we should take all the Warning Labels off stuff and let nature take its course.
Re the Fire Brigade incident that I refer to....if it were my local Volunteer Fire Department that did that....I would be making the exact same comments. However, knowing the guys and gals that serve there.....they would have found a way to get the guy out of the hole and damn the Rules as they would value that single life above mere compliance with a Rule for the Rule's sake.
There was a huge outcry in your own media about that tragedy so nothing new in my bringing it up.
We need Rules....but they should be reasonable and actually address a problem that cannot be cured by sheer good will of those involved in the activity.
There are Industry Best Practices that can be drawn from many sources and those are what we should embrace....so long as they are good, effective, and reasonable.
The Nanny State Mentality is not good, effective, or reasonable.
Regarding EMS Operations.....we have to decide how to go about doing this important and necessary work in as safe a manner as possible contingent to getting the job done.
We do not benefit from losing crews, patients, and aircraft while engaged in that pursuit.
I defy anyone to prove that any existing service is "perfect".
I also defy anyone to prove that any one system or method is "perfect".
There is no way under the Sun there is any one NAA that has the exact right set of Rules and Regulations regarding EMS Operations......NOT ONE.
We have to accept there shall be different rules in different places but they should be constructed to allow the maximum flexibility for carrying out safe, efficient medical transportation of injured and ill persons.
We know for a fact that NAA's are not known for being adept at finding such solutions.
Re the Fire Brigade incident that I refer to....if it were my local Volunteer Fire Department that did that....I would be making the exact same comments. However, knowing the guys and gals that serve there.....they would have found a way to get the guy out of the hole and damn the Rules as they would value that single life above mere compliance with a Rule for the Rule's sake.
There was a huge outcry in your own media about that tragedy so nothing new in my bringing it up.
We need Rules....but they should be reasonable and actually address a problem that cannot be cured by sheer good will of those involved in the activity.
There are Industry Best Practices that can be drawn from many sources and those are what we should embrace....so long as they are good, effective, and reasonable.
The Nanny State Mentality is not good, effective, or reasonable.
Regarding EMS Operations.....we have to decide how to go about doing this important and necessary work in as safe a manner as possible contingent to getting the job done.
We do not benefit from losing crews, patients, and aircraft while engaged in that pursuit.
I defy anyone to prove that any existing service is "perfect".
I also defy anyone to prove that any one system or method is "perfect".
There is no way under the Sun there is any one NAA that has the exact right set of Rules and Regulations regarding EMS Operations......NOT ONE.
We have to accept there shall be different rules in different places but they should be constructed to allow the maximum flexibility for carrying out safe, efficient medical transportation of injured and ill persons.
We know for a fact that NAA's are not known for being adept at finding such solutions.
... ... not in favour of taking a sledgehammer to crack a nut - trained paramedic or Doctors eyes in the front seat are just as good as a second pilot, IMHO, for dealing with this tragic circumstance. At least in the 99.99+% of normal landings their other skills will be significantly more useful than a second pilot!
Gets my vote. Develop the resources that you already have.
I believe that during NLA longline ops the Doctor is the lookout at the door giving direction to the pilot so she/he is already doing aviation tasks.
Avoid imitations
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Wandering the FIR and cyberspace often at highly unsociable times
Posts: 14,573
Received 422 Likes
on
222 Posts
Thus, your post very much misrepresents my views and past statements.
However, what cannot be denied is that in many of your posts (not just on this thread, but on many others) have always been extremely critical of the UK CAA. To some extent. I agree. Some aviation rules are not logical, or appear over cautious to anyone with any experience and common sense.
However, in the beginning, there were no rules. Then people started making ****ups. Rules got put in place.
Commercialism in aviation doesn't always go hand in hand with safety and of late, in UK at least, "no-win, no-fee" lawyers (an invention of the USA, I believe) have done huge damage to common sense in society overall, imho. We are supposed to be a civilised society but now the only way that we can be made civilised, at least in the professional rule makers eyes, is to make more rules. But these days it's more about covering one's backside than civilisation, or common sense.
P.S. Sometimes others can effectively stir the same pot, too.
"Just a pilot"
It appears to me that the accident wires were a long span over a valley without a clear line of towers or right of way. There is no mention of that span being marked on the surface.
There's some mention of charting wires in various accounts of this accident. Charts, NOTAMs, and METARs are all historical information and shouldn't be considered as definitive.
There's mention of failed verbal communication in various accounts, but no mention of a method of visual signals, like a "waveoff/abort".
P.S. Y'all can argue about stabilized, autopilot, multi-engine, day/night, IFR/VFR, 2 pilot crew, etc., all you want, but what works is well supported well trained pilot in reliable equipment allowed to work with minimal external pressures.
There's some mention of charting wires in various accounts of this accident. Charts, NOTAMs, and METARs are all historical information and shouldn't be considered as definitive.
There's mention of failed verbal communication in various accounts, but no mention of a method of visual signals, like a "waveoff/abort".
P.S. Y'all can argue about stabilized, autopilot, multi-engine, day/night, IFR/VFR, 2 pilot crew, etc., all you want, but what works is well supported well trained pilot in reliable equipment allowed to work with minimal external pressures.
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: UK
Posts: 291
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
SAS, jim, Shy & D49(your P.S.) - it seems we're all very much singing of the same hymn sheet. Once upon a time it was called common sense, but some people seem to require a nanny all their lives, while others get on with it and remember that we continue learning, loooooooooong after we've left school!
jim -that would appear to be an eminently sensible use of a fellow professional, who will likely absorb both the skills and raison d'etre very quickly, just before reverting to the primary job s/he's been flown there for.
Hurrah for common sense
, thumbs down to ar*e-covering. . .
jim -that would appear to be an eminently sensible use of a fellow professional, who will likely absorb both the skills and raison d'etre very quickly, just before reverting to the primary job s/he's been flown there for.
Hurrah for common sense
, thumbs down to ar*e-covering. . .
And uses the important motivator "your 4r5e is in a sling too if it all goes wrong".
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: 59°45'36N 10°27'59E
Posts: 1,032
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
NLA EC135s, Police EC135, 330 Sqn Sea King and 720 Sqn 412 did a fly past when mourners gathered at Bjørn Nergårds grave during the funeral today.
VIDEO LINK - NRK.NO
VIDEO LINK - NRK.NO
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: 59°45'36N 10°27'59E
Posts: 1,032
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
AIBN report released yesterday: Report (English Version)
