HEMS crash Turkey

[TeeS]

Sasless, you have as we say, 'got it in a nutshell'.

If I may add my few pennies worth: I spent years, banging my head against a brick wall combination of management and CAA personnel who were convinced that a non-CAT 'A'/PC1 takeoff or landing was a dangerous takeoff or landing. So we ended up with HEMS pilots reversing out of HEMS sites, nicely into wind, over the top of children's trampolines, building sites and sometimes, even the HEMS site etc.

At the same time, talk of military ITO combined with civilian HEMS operations is probably not sensible, I say this on the basis of the number of ex-military pilots, who have been involved in fatal incidents and near misses because they had 'done them before' (back in the military days) in unstabilised aircraft. Generally, the event has occured following a lack of recency, training, briefing or organisation approval. Would I have taken off in the conditions that appeared to be present in the video? I think probably not. Would I have reversed towards potentially the biggest structure around? Definitely not!

Cheers
TeeS

[TeeS]

Originally Posted by AAKEE

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

Hi AAKEE

Our posts crossed and I had been thinking about mentioning requirements for PC1 but stopped short. If the rules haven't changed too much since I had my head buried in the books, no! PC1 is required (dependent upon seating capacity) for operations to/from a heliport in a congested and hostile environment. So, if you have a reasonable expectation of being able to carry out a safe forced landing in the event of an engine failure, then you may operate in PC2. That's my memory of the wording and I am aware that I have been away from the books for a while now and our Authority will almost certainly disagree!

Cheers
TeeS

[SASless]

At the same time, talk of military ITO combined with civilian HEMS operations is probably not sensible, I say this on the basis of the number of ex-military pilots, who have been involved in fatal incidents and near misses because they had 'done them before' (back in the military days) in unstabilised aircraft. Generally, the event has occured following a lack of recency, training, briefing or organisation approval.

Your statement is quite correct and accurate.

I bolded the part that I find the most applicable to the discussion of "doing" any ITO be it the one under discussion or any other.

The "Authority" (the US FAA during my EMS flying days) would tell you that doing a one hour or so IMC Training replicating the IF Check Ride that followed the refuel made you both IMC/IFR current AND proficient.
I suggest it made you current. They would also say (by means of approving the Operator's blessing of some single pilot VMC/VFR IF approaches without a Safety Pilot or Vision Blocker) afforded actual proficiency in doing instrument approaches. Again I do not agree with that notion. It does allow you to use the Autopilot, familiarize yourself with the Approach data, radio frequencies and such but it does not really improve your handling skills once you cannot see outside the windows. Granted, the autopilot cares less but then it does not always function as it should. At that point you are back to your handling skills.

If you fly your trusty EMS helicopter single pilot...how do you get any Hood Time and do so legally?

When you have a patient onboard and the priority is getting them to the hospital as quickly as possible...you do not do a practice ILS approaches or holding along the way.

If you go for fuel after dropping the patient off....how many non-revenue hours will your Operator grant each Pilot for practice IFR approaches and where does that Safety Pilot come from.

Instrument flying skills are very perishable and just like your pocket knife need to be honed to keep it sharp.

[OvertHawk]

That it can be done is not in dispute.

Many of us have been trained how to do it if you must (someone is shooting at you or you're about to be washed away) or how to revert to it if you have to - brown out / white out.

But the simple fact that seems to be ignored here is that it simply was not necessary in this case.

The discussions about whether this was caused by a PC1 profile or by someone who could not do an (illegal) IMC takeoff like wot the military used to teach are just irrelevant.

This collision happened because the commander took off in poor weather and permitted themselves to lose visual reference and situational awareness leading to a collision with a building that had always been directly behind them.

Waffle as much as you wish about PC1 profiles and how the military do it.

This pilot took off in crap weather, lost their references and crashed into a building they should have known was there. That's nothing to do with a PC1 profile that they might or should have been flying and it's got nothing to do with a hypothetical IMC takeoff technique that they might have flown. It's got everything to do with command judgement and decision making.

There will be those that will say "well anyone can get cuaght out and you've clearly never been there and done that".

Well i have. I took off once in rubbish conditions that were more rubbish than i thought and i nearly killed myself on entering IMC before i expected to.

If i had it would not have been because i was flying the wrong profile or because i'd not been trained in the correct method it would have been because i made a foolish decision.

I should explain that i survived because i had been properly trained on how to recover and - belatedly - applied that training. If i'd applied the training in full i'd not even have started the engines.

[ShyTorque]

Overthawk,

But the simple fact that seems to be ignored here is that it simply was not necessary in this case.

I certainly didn’t ignore that in my post #7.

SASless reinforced my view at #8.

[OvertHawk]

Originally Posted by ShyTorque

Overthawk,




I certainly didn’t ignore that in my post #7.

indeed you did not Shy - but others seem to.

[AAKEE]

Originally Posted by TeeS

Hi AAKEE

Our posts crossed and I had been thinking about mentioning requirements for PC1 but stopped short. If the rules haven't changed too much since I had my head buried in the books, no! PC1 is required (dependent upon seating capacity) for operations to/from a heliport in a congested and hostile environment. So, if you have a reasonable expectation of being able to carry out a safe forced landing in the event of an engine failure, then you may operate in PC2. That's my memory of the wording and I am aware that I have been away from the books for a while now and our Authority will almost certainly disagree!

Cheers
TeeS

@Tees; I think we are in a good agreement on why not to do the "hairy things" . I guess we wrote about about the same reasons at the same time.
Below, not to write anyone on the nose but to make it clear that the things suggested as safer/better for HEMS will not be possible legal wise in the most cases. Or, someone can correct me, and then I'll learn some things I already should have known.


Takeoff and landing at a hospital fato at a congested hostile environment must be performed as PC1, regardless of seating capacity/MOPS. Both for homebase and other hospitals.

EASA SPA.HEMS:

Take-off and landing
(1) Helicopters that conduct operations to or from a final approach and take-off area (FATO) at a hospital that is located in a congested hostile environment and that is used as a HEMS operating base shall be operated in accordance with performance class 1.
(2) Helicopters that conduct operations to or from a FATO at a hospital that is located in a congested hostile environment and that is not a HEMS operating base shall be operated in accordance with performance class 1 except when the operator holds an approval in accordance with point CAT.POL.H.225.

The CAT.POL.H.225 doesn't open it up much:

Operations to/from a public interest site (PIS) may be conducted in performance class 2, without complying with CAT.POL.H.310(b) or CAT.POL.H.325(b), provided that all of the following are complied with:
(1) the site was established as a public interest site before 1 July 2002, or the site was established as a public interest site before 28 October 2014 and a derogation from this point granted under Article 6(6) has been notified to the Commission and the Agency before 14 June, 2023;
(2) the size of the PIS or obstacle environment does not permit compliance with the requirements for operation in performance class 1;
(3) the operation is conducted with a helicopter with an MOPSC of six or less;
(4) the operator complies with CAT.POL.H.305(b)(2) and (b)(3);
(5) the helicopter mass does not exceed the maximum mass specified in the AFM for a climb gradient of 8 % in still air at the appropriate take-off safety speed (VTOSS) with the critical engine inoperative and the remaining engines operating at an appropriate power rating; and
(6) the operator has obtained prior approval for the operation from the competent authority. Before such operations take place in another Member State, the operator shall obtain an endorsement from the competent authority of that State.

/Cheers & Happy New Year

[AAKEE]

Originally Posted by skadi

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

skadi

Yes, already sorted out by rotor_guy - Not a discussion about PC1 or not but that the EC135 would need visual references until 60KIAS without AP - And that even the hottest H145 of today need visual references until TDP (despite automatic return).
PC1 mostly required for HEMS- so we cannot legally just not give a damn about the PC1 profiles and make a mil IF.

[TeeS]

Good morning AAKEE

I suspect we are in agreement about everything here except my suggestion that you are not required to operate PC1 unless the site is both congested and hostile. If we are talking about a hospital site, generally the Authority will define that as congested; however, what makes it hostile? The EASA definition of hostile is:

(69) ‘hostile environment’ means:
(a) an area in which:
(i) a safe forced landing cannot be accomplished because the surface is inadequate; or
(ii) the helicopter occupants cannot be adequately protected from the elements; or
(iii) search and rescue response/capability are not provided consistent with anticipated exposure; or
(iv) there is an unacceptable risk of endangering persons or property on the ground;
(b) in any case, the following areas:
(i) for overwater operations, the open sea area north of 45 N and south of 45 S, unless any part is designated as non-hostile by the responsible authority of the State in which the operations take place; and
(ii) those parts of a congested area without adequate safe forced landing areas;

I would suggest (a) (ii) and (iii), along with (b) (i) are not going to be an issue, leaving only:
(a) (i) a safe forced landing cannot be accomplished because the surface is inadequate; or
(b) (ii) those parts of a congested area without adequate safe forced landing areas.

My suggestion is, where the site has suitable safe forced landing areas and surfaces, takeoff and landing are not required to be carried out PC1 (That does not mean I am anti PC1 by the way)

Cheers
TeeS

[[email protected]]

None of the quoting of the rules and regs - which most of us know and have flown to anyway - get away from the fact that operating a critical emergency service in poor weather is not adequately enabled by PC1 profiles especially when you can have a TDP several hundred feet above the surface when there is a low cloudbase.

The only way to protect these operations is to make them day/VMC only with strict criteria that removes temptation to push the envelope to get the job done - but what have you done then? You have removed the option of HEMS to get people to hospital, ignored the whole concept of the Golden Hour and ensured more people will die in long ambulance transfers.

I am not a PC1 etc fan - the processes grew out of fixed wing concepts of ops - great when you have several thousand feet of runway available and hundreds of people in the back. But they don't, on many occasions, allow the precious flexibility of the helicopter to be properly utilised.

The idea of a min speed on instruments is fine for manoeuvring or on approach but for a takeoff/departure has been ignored for the few seconds it takes to achieve it in so many instances I have seen - simply because you can transition a helicopter safely using the IFTO techniques as more than enough of us here can testify - it's just more rigid adherence to FW profiles.

Imagine it's your loved one bleeding in a car crash and the paramedics know immediate transfer to a hospital some distance away is essential - the only HEMS helicopter is at that hospital in marginal weather that precludes a PC1 departure because of obstacle clearances and a high TDP so he doesn't take off and your loved one bleeds out in the much slower ambulance on the way to hospital. Is that how you think we should be using emergency services helicopters?

For the sake of a properly trained pilot, current in IFTO techniques (current and competent) a person dies because the helicopter regulators are inextricably wedded to FW operating rules for public transport.

It's not progress.

[Rotor_guy]

Crab,

You must remember that the competent authority care none for that loved one in peril but for those members of the public who could come to harm by an incident/accident involving an aircraft.

The tail wags the dog and will never change.

RG

[AAKEE]

Originally Posted by TeeS

Good morning AAKEE

I suspect we are in agreement about everything here except my suggestion that you are not required to operate PC1 unless the site is both congested and hostile. If we are talking about a hospital site, generally the Authority will define that as congested; however, what makes it hostile? The EASA definition of hostile is:

(69) ‘hostile environment’ means:
(a) an area in which:
(i) a safe forced landing cannot be accomplished because the surface is inadequate; or
(ii) the helicopter occupants cannot be adequately protected from the elements; or
(iii) search and rescue response/capability are not provided consistent with anticipated exposure; or
(iv) there is an unacceptable risk of endangering persons or property on the ground;
(b) in any case, the following areas:
(i) for overwater operations, the open sea area north of 45 N and south of 45 S, unless any part is designated as non-hostile by the responsible authority of the State in which the operations take place; and
(ii) those parts of a congested area without adequate safe forced landing areas;

I would suggest (a) (ii) and (iii), along with (b) (i) are not going to be an issue, leaving only:
(a) (i) a safe forced landing cannot be accomplished because the surface is inadequate; or
(b) (ii) those parts of a congested area without adequate safe forced landing areas.

My suggestion is, where the site has suitable safe forced landing areas and surfaces, takeoff and landing are not required to be carried out PC1 (That does not mean I am anti PC1 by the way)

Cheers
TeeS

I never (yet) saw a elevated helipad on a hospital where the areas around arent congested and so cramped that it wasnt possible to build them on the ground. And could offer a safe landing with no risk to third parties, which has the highest priority. We could easily understand that the accident in this thread could have injured or killed persons on the ground and did damage property. So, from my point of view it is a congested hostile environment.

From my understanding, these get put on the roof of the hospital when the areas around doesnt allow for having them on the ground.

I should know the EASA rules slightly better than I do as a chief pilot in the HEMS bussines, but I actually haven't been given the time to read everything (yet). Too much other things to do.
But from what I did read so far, I have interpreted the rules to mean that we normally need to use PC1 at elevated helipads.

My company manditate PC1 at any airport, at any hospital with a helipad, eleveted or not. And PC1 for CAT = Air ambulance for the flights that regulatorly will be considered Air Ambulance and cannot be considered HEMS.
Maybe we hold the flag higher than others, or needed?

[AAKEE]

Originally Posted by [email protected]

None of the quoting of the rules and regs - which most of us know and have flown to anyway - get away from the fact that operating a critical emergency service in poor weather is not adequately enabled by PC1 profiles especially when you can have a TDP several hundred feet above the surface when there is a low cloudbase.

The only way to protect these operations is to make them day/VMC only with strict criteria that removes temptation to push the envelope to get the job done - but what have you done then? You have removed the option of HEMS to get people to hospital, ignored the whole concept of the Golden Hour and ensured more people will die in long ambulance transfers.​​​

I disagree.

The actual flight was not following the rules as it seems, but that kind of take of could be either a failed attempt for a VFR takeoff or IFR takeoff. From the media reports of going on a HEMS mission I would guess VFR was the plan?

I would say IFR, when possible is safer than going below in marginal VFR weather (its true even if I lived and loved the military way of handling it way back. In the end of my career with helos certified for icing conditions, we more often used IFR instead of marginal VFR when the tactics didnt call for it).
Adhering to the rules is the way to stay safe both in IFR and VFR, and for HEMS worldwide I would say that VFR weather related accidents below the weather minimum counts for a very large part of the accidents. Off course, in many missions IFR is not an option as going out on a HEMS mission often makes VFR the only way.

Originally Posted by [email protected]

I am not a PC1 etc fan - the processes grew out of fixed wing concepts of ops - great when you have several thousand feet of runway available and hundreds of people in the back. But they don't, on many occasions, allow the precious flexibility of the helicopter to be properly utilised.

The idea of a min speed on instruments is fine for manoeuvring or on approach but for a takeoff/departure has been ignored for the few seconds it takes to achieve it in so many instances I have seen - simply because you can transition a helicopter safely using the IFTO techniques as more than enough of us here can testify - it's just more rigid adherence to FW profiles.

Imagine it's your loved one bleeding in a car crash and the paramedics know immediate transfer to a hospital some distance away is essential - the only HEMS helicopter is at that hospital in marginal weather that precludes a PC1 departure because of obstacle clearances and a high TDP so he doesn't take off and your loved one bleeds out in the much slower ambulance on the way to hospital. Is that how you think we should be using emergency services helicopters?​​​

We can do PC1 at all hospitals that have a helipad, elevated or not so it doesnt change anything in the example above.
We have hospitals without a certified helipad, and at these we PC2 allowed on HEMS missions only, so it doesnt change anything to the worse in that case either. It is also possible to qualify these non certified landing sites for PC1, which we are in the doing for.

Originally Posted by [email protected]

For the sake of a properly trained pilot, current in IFTO techniques (current and competent) a person dies because the helicopter regulators are inextricably wedded to FW operating rules for public transport.

Am I reading your sentence like you think the regulators caused the accident?

There are safe ways to takeoff from elevated heliports and perform IFR takeoffs, that also includes PC1 wich reduces the risk of an accident if one engine fails. I do not see why we would not reduce Murphys possible attempt to kill us and/or people on the ground whnever it is possible.

From my first post, the purpose of the post was to say that as EASA doesn't allow us to disregard PC1, theres no possibillity for a military instrument takeoff.

[SASless]

From my first post, the purpose of the post was to say that as EASA doesn't allow us to disregard PC1, theres no possibillity for a military instrument takeoff.

What you fail to do is articulate what prism you are peering through and how it affects your views on the matter.

EMS gets flown outside the EU and the UK and of course have different Rules and Regulations as well as differences in terrain weather, and other aspects of the job.

Clear example....you ignore those operations that utilize single engine helicopters and have done so since the inception of EMS in the United States and still do.

Yours is a typical failure to see beyond your own windscreen to see how it is done outside your own small pea patch.

Holding to industry best practices as you are telling us you and your Operation strive to do is commendable. Nothing wrong with that at all as you are working within the environment you live within.

However, reality is you can find yourself becoming a net loss operation that cannot survive financially or you defeat the very purpose you are there to provide if you allow those requirements to paint you into a corner.

Crab and I rarely agree upon anything but disagreeing itself but he is close to the mark in his post.

He has a background flying in an operation that did not concern itself with generating revenue and provided service under very challenging conditions....and survived to be able to post here.

Perhaps, you might slow down and think about the congregation to which you are preaching as we come from all over and some of us actually have valid insight into what we are talking about.

Safety in the Helicopter Industry seems to be a curse and rarely seen as a blessing and as a result we have the situation we do.....no matter where you are based.

Rules written on paper have no meaning unless and until they describe exactly how Operations are performed but as in most things when government gets involved the Devil is in the details.

I have done audits of SOP's and Compliance by Operations to their own Rules and Regulations and the results were quite informative usually resulting in the need to bring both the SOP and the actual practice into conformity.

Questions: Do you have any statistics for incidents where operating to PC1 standards and profiles actually prevented the loss of lives or property of third parties on the ground?

How many engine failures have occurred while using PC1 standards have occurred that harmed no one?

What is the Risk Probability that can be measured from that empirical data?

Aviation is a Risk filled endeavour but the question is what is an reasonable or acceptable risk....and in this case we are talking y about innocent bystanders the way the rule is written.

What is the acceptable risk factor and does it compute to the empirical data gleaned from actual operations and at what collateral costs?

Is there such data available from the Authority that sets the Rules for your Operation which I assume is the UK CAA.

JimL might be of great benefit to us in this as he is certainly an expert in this subject matter.

[AAKEE]

Originally Posted by SASless

What you fail to do is articulate what prism you are peering through and how it affects your views on the matter.

If I was to send my daughter or son with a HEMS flight, I would prefer it to be a multiengine FAR/CS29 certified helicopter with multipilot.
We (I) do both SP+HEMS crew and mulitpilot, but for sending my child, that would be the prefered way.


I know a little about what is happening in other part of the world. The Us EMS way seem to kill quite some people.

Me thinkin that just because Russia continue to shoot down civil aircraft it might not be the right way.

[AAKEE]

Originally Posted by SASless

Perhaps, you might slow down and think about the congregation to which you are preaching as we come from all over and some of us actually have valid insight into what we are talking about.

You might need to aim your efforts to someone else.

Me just sayi'n that we can not perform the takeoffs as you suggest as this is not allowed by EASA.
I have accepted the way EASA manage this, but I am not a very strong advocate for the whole thing - exept for the manual military takoffs that would not be safe in these cases for already stated reasons. Remember: I only said those takeoffs will not be possible to perform, and that I do not think they fit the average HEMS pilot. Actually I think they would be stupid to perform instead of the automated PC1 compliant ditos.

[Radgirl]

Imagine it's your loved one bleeding in a car crash and the paramedics know immediate transfer to a hospital some distance away is essential - the only HEMS helicopter is at that hospital in marginal weather that precludes a PC1 departure because of obstacle clearances and a high TDP so he doesn't take off and your loved one bleeds out in the much slower ambulance on the way to hospital. Is that how you think we should be using emergency services helicopters?

A rational argument Crab but there are many instances not involving helicopters where the emergency services restrict themselves. Ambulance crews dont for example go into hostage situations or situations where there are weapons until the police declare it safe (at least in many countries!). If you are an ambulance paramedic you only have to go to one motorway / freeway accident and attempt to treat a patient before the road is made safe for it to be your last. Patients bleeding out that could be saved are statistically rare but at the same time a helicopter accident is likely to kill more people than it saves...... And in this case I thought it was a positioning flight and even if the departure was achieved how safe would an approach to a patient in that weather be?

[[email protected]]

Radgirl, as I no longer fly in a professional capacity, I have been trained as a Community First Responder and completed a number of ambulance shifts as part of ,my training - I am well aware that ambulance crews also have their operational limits and constraints.

Yes, it appears to have been a positioning flight in this case and although the conditions at the hospital were not very suitable, the conditions elsewhere might have been absolutely fine. The forecast and actual weather would have helped me make a decision in this case.

AKEE

we can not perform the takeoffs as you suggest as this is not allowed by EASA.

exactly my point - it is the regulators, not the skill of the pilots or the safety of the machines that is the limiting factor here. We, and many other SAR operators, managed for many years to fly in completely unsuitable weather, over land and sea by day and night, constantly mitigating the risks of engine failures or other malfunctions, into and out of hospital sites to save lives - all without PC1 limitations and all completely safely. EASA regs are not progress.

If there was any level of expertise in helicopter ops within EASA and any understanding of how unsuitable the performance class restrictions are for HEMS and SAR work, we might see more flexibility in how such operations can be conducted.

I am sure I am not alone in having hover-taxied from field to field in fog (at night) to creep in over the hospital fence and deliver the critical casualty to then depart vertically into IMC for the return to base. These things can be done repeatedly and safely when the situation requires them - you just have to allow the crews to train for them.

[SASless]

Note to the participants.....EASA, EU,UK....which is the prism through which you see things....is not the only way helicopters are operated in other parts of the World.

Your rules and regulations do not necessarily apply elsewhere.

Yes....Alice there is more than one way to fly helicopters.

Keep that in mind as you offer your views and interpretations of what is and what should be as in some cases what is in your pea patch is not what is elsewhere.

Crab in a left handed manner hits upon that in his posts.

He does it via comparing the UK Military method to the UK civilian method which are done in the exact same locales but done in a very much different way.

Aircraft and the capabilities of each vary, training varies, experience of the crews vary, weather and weather reporting, and operator safety cultures vary.......along with the difference in the rules and regulations that pertain and are actually applied and enforced.

Is Crab right that the Rules are overlooking exactly why the aircraft are being operated and the entire point of the exercise is at risk due to being ignored for the wrong reasons? I think he is.

[twinstar_ca]

Originally Posted by Radgirl

A rational argument Crab but there are many instances not involving helicopters where the emergency services restrict themselves. Ambulance crews dont for example go into hostage situations or situations where there are weapons until the police declare it safe (at least in many countries!). If you are an ambulance paramedic you only have to go to one motorway / freeway accident and attempt to treat a patient before the road is made safe for it to be your last. Patients bleeding out that could be saved are statistically rare but at the same time a helicopter accident is likely to kill more people than it saves...... And in this case I thought it was a positioning flight and even if the departure was achieved how safe would an approach to a patient in that weather be?

As callous as it sounds, I learned very early in my EMS career NOT to let someone else's bad day become MY bad day.