HEMS crash Turkey

[skadi]

By the way, the accident aircraft seems to be a EC 135P2+ from DRF Luftrettung/Germany. They swapped their whole EC135 fleet to H135H with 4-axis AP Helionics and some EC135 were sold to Turkiye

skadi

[RVDT]

Originally Posted by skadi

By the way, the accident aircraft seems to be a EC 135P2+ from DRF Luftrettung/Germany. They swapped their whole EC135 fleet to H135H with 4-axis AP Helionics and some EC135 were sold to Turkiye

skadi

...............and there is a historical photograph on the previously linked ASN site and it is a SAS only aircraft with no AP (no additional YAW actuator) and hence more than likely analogue flight instruments.

[skadi]

Originally Posted by RVDT

...............and there is a historical photograph on the previously linked ASN site and it is a SAS only aircraft with no AP (no additional YAW actuator) and hence more than likely analogue flight instruments.

Yes, as said in my post #25

skadi

[[email protected]]

The TU mode on the 139 is suitable for a clear area departure where you have the obstacle clearances - or an over water departure. The fact it gives you the aircraft back at 200' is easily managed by selecting ALTA as it does so and continuing your climb to your desired level.

What we don't seem to know about the Turkey crash is how he got into the hospital site in the first place - perhaps the weather worsened while he was on the ground.

[OvertHawk]

Originally Posted by [email protected]

What we don't seem to know about the Turkey crash is how he got into the hospital site in the first place - perhaps the weather worsened while he was on the ground.

I heard somewhere that there was a suggestion that the machine had been stranded there a couple of days due to bad weather. Might imply a certain amount of commercial pressure to get the machine out and back on line elsewhere.

[RVDT]

Originally Posted by skadi

Yes, as said in my post #25

skadi

skadi - Was just supporting your statement as the thread morphed towards "automation" assumptions.

[Sir Korsky]

Anybody got the stats on helicopter IMC CFIT/UFIT take off accidents as opposed to cruise or approach phases ? The UK 139 disaster mentioned above and maybe the Bahamas one, are the only few I can recall.

[That lights normal!]

I’m betting most (all?) of us have made decisions we would have made differently with hind-site. Surviving these decisions and learning from them is what is commonly referred to as “experience”, and is highly regarded, and often required for various positions.

The drift into automation/techniques/requirements is interesting, but let’s not lose sight of the fact, that this crash was the result of, and could have been prevented by, one better decision.

Something we should all take on board.

RIP, and “Those without Sin, cast the first stone”.
(I’ve personally pulled an EMS helicopter into an unexpected white out, at night, from an unprepared pad. There was some luck, and IF technique, involved with the successful outcome that night!)

[Sir Korsky]

Originally Posted by That lights normal!

commonly referred to as “experience”, and is highly regarded, and often required for various positions.

Nah. Helicopter pilots are ten-a-penny and that's what insurance is for. Harsh but true. Nothing seems to change does it ? Folk flying perfectly serviceable aircraft into obstacles time and time again, experienced or not. Glad I'm out.

[SASless]

The threat environment for helicopter operations is far greater than for our fixed brethren who generally operate from well marked, well lit, benign surfaces.

Yet they find ways to run into for be run into by other airplanes, ground vehicles, and fixed structures.

We often are right down there amongst the masts, towers, wires, cranes, trees, and rocks operating in all kinds of weather and some times during times of great stress due to the nature of the operation

You could have also opined about the cost/benefit situation when it comes to helicopter aviation and how it suffers due to lack of adequate funding and the explanation for that shortfall in monies dedicated to sustaining and excellent safety culture and environment by Helicopter Operators.

How would you improve the situation were you to have that opportunity?

TLN,

If we stay in the business of flying helicopters long enough at some point we all become Sinners....some are recidivists....some become statistics. Helicopter aviation just like other facets of life....learning via Parable is far better than learning by trial and error as there is minimal risk to the Parable method so long as you choose the correct Parable.

[jellycopter]

Originally Posted by SASless

How would you improve the situation were you to have that opportunity?

The very nature of helicopter operations means there will inevitably be more ‘accidents’ than our fixed wing counterparts. We need to accept that fact and move on.

Training will help, SOPs should help, Experience will help, improved equipment will help; but one will never fully eliminate the risks. To fully eliminate the risks would mean fully eliminating what helicopters are uniquely capable of doing. You can’t have those unique capabilities without the risk.

Regulators continually try to regulate (the clue is in the name) away the risks. In so doing, they regulate away capabilities. I don’t see capabilities improving any time soon, due to ever increasing regulation. But the job still needs to be done…. doesn’t it?

[[email protected]]

Regulators continually try to regulate (the clue is in the name) away the risks. In so doing, they regulate away capabilities. I don’t see capabilities improving any time soon, due to ever increasing regulation. But the job still needs to be done…. doesn’t it?

Yes, which is why the regulators should include mandatory training in 'military' IF take off techniques as well as all the other IR stuff - you don't necessarily have to test it on an IR check ride but if it is documented as having been taught (even just in the sim) you are giving non ex-mil pilots another string to their bow when the 'job really needs to get done'.

It may not sit well with some but it's a whole lot better than picking bodies out of the wreckage again and again.

I liken it to the RAF's attitude to wingovers (which everyone did anyway out of sight of grown-ups) back in the late 80s early 90s - which were frowned on and not taught during basic or advanced training. Then a very experienced instructor killed himself and his student in a poorly executed wingover and suddenly we were all teaching them and they became part of the syllabus.

Change can happen. It won't stop pilots rediscovering old ways of killing themselves but at least you can remove a percentage of those accidents and any incremental change to prevent crashes has to be a good thing.

[helispotter]

I stumbled across the Facebook page called "Helicopter Safety Updates" and found this comment posted by Claude Vuichard in relation to this accident:

"For almost 55 years, Switzerland had a so-called "cloud breaking procedures" in force and operated safely without a single incident during that time. It was possible to fly through ground fog or high fog up to an altitude of 1000 feet.
In 2016 the EASA came along and determined that this was not in compliance with Standardised European Rules of the Air (SERA) and immediately banned this procedure. Today this procedure can only be used for rescue flights and not for other operations such as SOPs. The sad part of the whole story is that the next accident is pre-programmed, but at least it will be legal under EASA regulations!
As an international helicopter safety expert, I can only shake my head in disbelief, and it actually makes me sad. Claude Vuichard"

As SLF, I haven't heard of "cloud breaking procedures" before.

[jellycopter]

‘As an international helicopter safety expert’ - C Vuichard

There’s nothing like blowing one’s own trumpet.

[jellycopter]

Originally Posted by [email protected]

Yes, which is why the regulators should include mandatory training in 'military' IF take off techniques as well as all the other IR stuff - you don't necessarily have to test it on an IR check ride but if it is documented as having been taught (even just in the sim) you are giving non ex-mil pilots another string to their bow when the 'job really needs to get done'.

I generally concur, although I think the ‘Miltary IFTO’ is a perishable skill that should be practiced regularly.

While we’re chatting about instrument flying, don’t get me started on the PPL(H) PC 180 degree turn on foggles requirement……..madness.

[AAKEE]

Originally Posted by [email protected]

Yes, which is why the regulators should include mandatory training in 'military' IF take off techniques as well as all the other IR stuff - you don't necessarily have to test it on an IR check ride but if it is documented as having been taught (even just in the sim) you are giving non ex-mil pilots another string to their bow when the 'job really needs to get done'.

Comming from the military and such take offs and being used to these, they arent possble to legally be performed in the most HEMS aircrafts.
For H145, it has been "TDP and further acceleration to VTOSS can be accomplished using visual references", which means 45KIAS.
The new V.10 software (Automated T/O and rejection) makes it legal from TDP (if memory serves correct), which mostly means 200 feet above the elevated heliport.

As I understood it from higher up in the thread, this EC135 did not have any Autopilot with Upper modes ?
Not having such, the military IMC T/O wouldnt count and also not make PC1 possible.

[skadi]

Originally Posted by AAKEE

As I understood it from higher up in the thread, this EC135 did not have any Autopilot with Upper modes ?
Not having such, the military IMC T/O wouldnt count and also not make PC1 possible.

PC1 is legally possible even with this older EC135 without any AP.

skadi

[Rotor_guy]

I think what AAKEE is referring to is that the pilot must remain visual with the take off surface until TDP conducting PC1. In this example i think we’ve all concluded he lost visual reference before that point therefore it wasn’t a legal departure.

RG

[SASless]

What some seem to be missing is the military style ITO being discussed by Crab and some of us is that ITO does not require any SAS/Upper Modes, and totally ignores PC1 criteria and cares not how many engines the aircraft has.

Folks....it was done using Bell 47's (with UH-1 standard Instrumentation) by the US Army during the IF Phase of helicopter flight training....and has been done in some form literally all around the World in all sorts of helicopters by pilots trained in the technique in both single pilot and multi-pilot crew situations. The imposition and strict obedience to artificial standards such as PC1 and other requirements done with very good intentions do not always produce the best outcomes.

[AAKEE]

Originally Posted by SASless

What some seem to be missing is the military style ITO being discussed by Crab and some of us is that ITO does not require any SAS/Upper Modes, and totally ignores PC1 criteria and cares not how many engines the aircraft has.

(I have quite some hours in just that military role, did exit mil at retirement. Been there, done that.)

I’m not talking about what is possible for a trained pilot in for example state aviation like the military.

EASA-land regulates PC1 for HEMS from heliports and airports, right?

PC1, with a not automated EC135 will require 60KIAS still with visual references to the ground.
Not legally possible in the weather we saw.

The latest H145 with v.10 requires visual references to the ground until TDP, barely legal in this case. But still required to follow the profiles for PC1.

So there are no legal possibilities to perform the military/ SAR - style T/O like a regular Trans Up etc, as they will not fullfill the PC1 requirements.
(There is a straight up to TDP procedure with upper modes in ”Hover”, earlier ”GTC.H, so we do not need to back into anything.

So what I thought I was clear writing but probably was not is that the suggestion/ discussion about the military style T/O is not really relevant here except for - hypothetical discussions.

After leaving the air force and getting some years in the HEMS business it is quite easy to see that in the HEMS you do not get to regularly train in the same way as for example when doing SAR.
Also, long from all entering HEMS have much IFR experience at all (I guess this is similar at many other HEMS operators).

I would say that statistically it would be easy to show that the military style takeoffs, specially hand flown will have higher risk than automated ditos. (Not even thinking OEI-things, but just spatial disorientation etc.)

The combination not to train it often / regularly like I did / we did / some do and the increased risk to start with equals = probably something HEMS crews should not do even if it was allowed.
To that, add slight fatigue and a mission that begins 02:00 and goes for some hours.

HEMS has by definition dangers enough as is, so I think we need to reduce the risks where we can, to get an acceptable total risk.

This will mean I do not come close to show off my, from before obtained skills and I fly more or less precisely in the center off the envelope all the time.
Much less ”Biggles” but much more safe in the end.