Night Ops - Is there a better way??
 

Australasian emergency service operators will gather at Sea World, Qld, Australia, to continue the work started last November. The November gathering was to start a think tank on how to avoid the latest local and overseas night accidents, especially from the emergency services activities.

We would welcome any ideas you may have. Perhaps we present could these in a folder to our delegates on 17-21 May 04. The Australasian operators consist of about 50 SAR/EMS bases, many of which are night visual operators.

Should you have any website tips, maybe a paper you once presented, or just a good idea, we would love to hear from you. Too many young wives are nursing children who have lost their dad when he was trying to help someone in the night.

Any ideas?

Speaking as an ex SAR and police pilot, it's difficult to say without reading all the accident reports. Is there a common thread?

Are the aircraft properly equipped, fully IFR with a good autopilot, especially over the sea?

What are the weather limits?

What is the expected response time? Slowing this down might allow a sleepy pilot to gather his thoughts. I used to work for an outfit that encouraged pilots to sleep on shift but expected a 20 minute airborne response time for night casevacs. Once or twice, I was airborne but couldn't remember which landing site I was actually going to. :\

Is this civilian ops only?
In addition to Shytorques questions which would paint a picture for us to offer specific suggestions, what about:

NVIS?
CRM?

Over water at night requires a minimum of FULL auto pilot and an IR pilot. Anything less is asking for trouble.

When you arrive at scene and during the descent to the hover, at night, no visuals, is it automatic doppler hover? A visual approach to the hover is asking for an accident.

Local night overland EMS should be flown to CASA night VFR limits, is it?

If CASA aren't doing their bit, then you're going to have to lobby it as a unique group and stiffen the minimums. Do you employ GPS approaches at night?

Give us your reasons why so many of you 'stoof' at night???

Regards....

To all parties concerned,

Recent night accidents in Australia and abroad can only be contributed to helicopters not fully equipped to do the job at hand safely. So many times I/we read of accident reports where pilots attempt to be a hero at night with a single-turbine/single pilot operation - only certified for day VFR Ops.

Regardless of the experience levels of aircrew, no single-pilot can operate a helicopter safely at night (especially over water) without the necessary stabilization/auto-pilot functions.

The EMS Industry, being mostly driven by charity organisations, is a classical example how these organisations are placing huge amount of external pressures on pilots/aircrew to perform the jobs (day, night, IFR, etc.), without providing aircrew with available and suitable resources.

This is something the marine pilot transfer industry should also consider. At the end of the day, if organisations don't invest in suitable equipment, aircrew (especially pilots) is not always going the last line of defence pulling the helicopter out the dive and saving the day.

There is no simple or single solution. If organisations want to do these kind of jobs, regardless of day, night, etc., they have to be prepared to invest in new and suitable equipment to operate safely and even more importantly, providing the community with a safe and efficient 24hr, 7 day-a week, 365-day operation!!

Rest my case!!

CJ

ST and CJ have hit it on the head......VFR machines doing other than VFR ops.....

[CJ, Day and Night VFR operations - Correction]

The quicker NVG's are commonplace in our Industry, the fewer lives will be lost.

And yes the Marine Pilot fleet in this country [with a few multi - IFR exceptions] are operating illegally.

And CASA have now reversed the proposed new regulations under pressure from one loud and powerful voice up on the east coast. So nothing will change now.

CASA is complicit in both the above disciplines.

Overwater SAR was flown without autopilot, doppler, etc. in Canada for 35 years with only one incident that could have been prevented with computers. Lack of computers was not the cause; the incident happened due to a breakdown in cockpit communication/CRM.

A load of computers in the cockpit reduces the pilot's workload, but it is still imperative that the crew have adequate training and procedures.

It may be possible to have an extremely safe operation in a single pilot, single engined machine without doppler, autopilot, radalt, etc. as long as the pilot works well with the crew and the procedures are sound. However, it should be obvious that there are large holes in that operation. For example, what if the pilot sneezes in the hover? With that in mind, I think it's fair to demand a two pilot and one rear crew member operation. Extra safety is realized with radalt, doppler, and autopilot (in that order).

Survival and safety equipment helps after the incident occured. RUET (egress) training, EBS, survival clothing, WSPS, aircraft flotation systems, and survival kits are all good ideas (in approximately that order).

Other equipment that comes to mind aids in mission effectiveness, but not necessarily in safety. NVIS allows you to complete more missions, but if the judgement is so poor that the wrong missions are attempted without NVIS, then that judgement could still occur with NVIS. Weather/Search radar has obvious mission enhancement capabilities, as far as increasing safety it again falls down to understanding the limitations of the equipment you have.

ShyTorque's comments regarding response time and fatigue are bang on. There are many studies regarding fatigue due to dusrupted diurnal cycles. DCIEM may be a good place to start looking.

Two other areas that are worth mentioning, but must be treated carefully, are experience and background. Experience by itself does not ensure a safer operation. However, low time pilots don't belong in the more demanding environments. The skills that are required go well beyond 'stick actuator'. Judgement, leadership, understanding limitations, courage, etc. should be considered when hiring for the dangerous demanding missions. This is one area where the military background might have an advantage over the civilian background. While the civilians tend to develop the better hands and feet while gaining experience, the military focuses on procedural flying and discipline. I tread lightly here because I don't want to imply anyone is better than anyone else, just that different skills get developed. Also, don't ignore anyone's serious application for a position, a diverse pool could offer much more than hiring in the same image.

In short, don't rush to blame the pilot or the equipment. The system itself should first fall under scrutiny, especially when there is a surge of incidents.

1/ Make the regulations readable and useful (Just adopt the Kiwi system, why keep trying to reinvent the wheel, nothings perfect yet nothing would be lost and it is fairly mature now - beats trying to freeze Hell as has been happening for the last quarter of a century or more which is a complete waste of time!) Australia is a classic for inventing items with a total World market of 6 units.

2/ Remove the commercial element - check out REGA in Switzerland. REGA It's actually part of the Swiss Red Cross. NVG ops for many years and virtually all Helicopter Ops are VFR. Not all pilots are NVG qualified though. The country is seething with wires as well which is even more cause.

3/ Only use pilots with extensive local knowledge. REGA uses this system with local operators pilots rostered on. It's for the community who is paying for it and I am sure if asked local operators would contribute the time. A pilot is probably one of the most expensive resources in a helicopter. Dump the ego's.

4/ Make the operations as per Part 135 as follows:

135.207___VFR: Helicopter surface reference requirements.

No person may operate a helicopter under VFR unless that person has visual surface reference or, at night, visual surface light reference, sufficient to safely control the helicopter. This will not preclude night rescue over water if you think about it - who's heard of the glowstick runway? Natural under Item 1.

5/ Any service provided in an aircraft to a third party should be a licensed and operated as per Part 135. Air Transport or Commercial Transport. End of story. Just how does that pilot transfer operation up North in Aus work again?

6/ Get out more often - remove the beer goggles.

It will take a lot to change what you've currently got, but something obviously is out of whack.

As usual Australian Heli rescue services try "to make Strawberry Jam out of Kangaroo droppings" ...now Australia does need Heli rescue services the problem is that the various Govt. agencies don't really want to know and will only assist with funds when it is politically necessary ... the result is as we see short cuts and using whatever a/c is dormant in the back of a hanger in an effort to get a contract or operate the cheapest way possible ... enthusiasm is great its just that without the skills and experience of "aged" and possibly "expensive" crews the level of risk goes up ...this old crap arguement of single engine is ok and can do the job is "nearly" always put forward by those who really don't have to do it or are too inexperienced to know how it sholuld be done in a manner to REDUCE RISK to all concerned ... the fact is it is only when you can get into medium twin engined helis do you get the choices of (autopilot? proper IFR capability?) equipment needed to be able to carry out the tasks reliably and with the minimum risks to all concerned with the operation including the political fallout from a underfunded if enthusiastic but inexperienced operator pushes a crew into an accident ! :ooh:

The way I see it…

NVFR for all aircraft:
NVFR is not available if less than a 1/3 moon above the horizon.
Spell it out in black and white, we’ve had enough grey. In addition to the other metrological aspects that need to be considered, publish a yearly chart, NVFR is not available between the:
17th to the 22nd Jan
9th to the 15th Feb ect.

SAR / EMS
Have crews experienced enough to say no.
Have an organisation and or management big enough to allow them to say no.
Have an organisational mentality and the means to allow them to safely say yes.
If your task decision making is partly based on the amount of media coverage you’ll receive to appease your sponsors / community, get out before you hurt someone.
If you need to sell lamingtons to be able to fix the fuel gauge, get out before you hurt someone.
If it doesn’t have a 3 axis autopilot and Instrument rated pilots to fly it, at sundown, push it in the hanger.
Night over water ops (bulk carriers could be excepted) if it doesn’t have autohover capabilities and current pilots to fly it, leave it till morning.

;)

Where the hell are CASA in all this. They should have come down on dodgy operators years ago when the crash stats started spiking!!!
A strong and consistent application of the regs should prevent operators from 'pushing the limits' to put it politely.

CASA are hiding in the Sand.
 

Mr. CASA ...who was structuring the new CASR 133 regarding EMS / SAR / MPT night regulations, and in fact came up with some realistic requirements, has now transferred out and guess what??

That Original Draft CASR 133 has now been changed, and basically CASA have not progressed the standards one tiny bit.

And why was it changed??....ask the people who fought against the Autopilots outside 10 nms, lit coastlines etc. The same group that was implicit in a recent fatal accident on the same coast. [And no not the actual operator involved].

And the reason this occurred is that CASA is driven by faceless, senior administrators that have no actual experience or qualificatuions to base their actions on.
[That is no reflection on a handful of very capable, base level FOI's...but the dills above them]

TC...Thats where CASA is, with their heads tightly up their own bums.

What do you say to that Robsrich???

Redwine:

Nothing on the CASA site appears to give any clue thas this NPRM has been dropped - where do I have to go to get access to this information?

Now that Mal has transferred over, who is resonsible for the progress of this body of work (not just 133 but the proposed amendments to 91, 119 etc.)?

Changed, not Dropped
 

When the Document, CASR 133 was returned to the Industry for comment, it had a number of requirements that addressed the exact issues that we discuss here after every accident...Stab Systems, IFR vs VFR, Autopilots. [Someone in the CASR 133 team was actually listening]

But when it went back to CASA, a change occurred, and some if not all initiatives were removed.....and now we will not see the document again until it’s out in legislation form.....to late!!

[Unless we YELL and SCREAM]


Important: ...I suggest its time to put personal feelings aside. Whatever your view on the HAA or any of its Members and/or Administrators, its time to put them aside for a while, as the last Seminar and I suspect this one as well was/is a strong voice to carry the Industry concerns to Canberra.
Be there and support our Industry.

I have never been a member of this group until the last seminar, but can see that it is the only group that has the ear of Canberra.

Remember at the last Seminar, the NZ CAA sent a team of guys across, NTSB was there, CASA [I think] and nearly every operator worth their salt was represented at some level.

I will be the cool dude with the big hat....hiding in the corner.

Thanks guys - you are hitting home runs!
 

The response from you has been fantastic! I am collecting your comments and passing to all the key players as they appear on this thread. Keep the ideas flowing, it will really make the industry take notice. Thanks .....

Hi

After having flown SAR/EMS in Sarawak, Tasmania, Vic Pol, NSCA, Saudi Arabia, Lismore and Newcastle (and the odd short contract for QES), I guess my first comment is that "it's just a job". And as everybody knows in these days of OH&S, every employee is entitled to as safe a working environment as possible.

My wish list for night EMS operations is:
1. Only allow landings at lit, surveyed helipads i.e. no descent below lowest safe unless landing at a previously surveyed, lit helipad. Why we have ever allowed the "black hole" approach to be undertaken is beyond me. I remember an old Senior Sgt from the Tasmania Police search and rescue squad, who told me, when I was a boggy, "never risk a life to save a life".
2. Get the charities out of the game. Their culture exerts all kinds of pressures on a professional pilot which are not normally found in commercial or government organisations.
3. Only allow "standby at the base" duty where the accommodation for the crew is slightly removed from the base itself and the organisation who employs the pilots signs an agreement with CASA (or who ever) that a pilot will not be asked to undertake any duties, while on standby. Otherwise all standby should be taken at home or at a local motel. That is, standby is standby, not an excuse to get a pilot to undertake admin duties or clean the flaming helo.
4. No night winching. From my experience, a "black hole" approach always seems to precede a night winch.
5. All night EMS aircraft to be either single or two pilot IFR certified and crewed by one or two suitably IFR qualified (and current) IFR pilots.
6. No use of NVG's. If you had the vision that NVG's afforded you, you would be classed as legally blind and be receiving a government pension. Do you think the OH&S people would allow an Ambulance officer to drive an ambulance around using these NVG's?

My wish list for night SAR ops is: same as night EMS

Some people may maintain that night over water SAR ops can be undertaken with A/C fitted with 4 axis autopilots and appropriate autohover SAR packages. Not even QES can maintain their system and keep their people current on their SAR package equipped 412. If by some miracle unlimiter budgets become available, let's revisit this one.

The way the SAR/EMS industry is in Australia at the moment, I think I'll leave it to the young blokes who still think they're 10 foot tall and indestructible :-)

Good luck.

Lofty what do you mean by this?

Almost all european EMS operators who fly night ops, use NVIS!

Lofty,
I have to ask - how much NVG time do you have?

NVG's versus non-NVG's: NVG's - acuity about 20/35 to 20/45 (MIL-SPEC for AN/AVS 6). Human eye in low illumination: 20/200 to 20/400. Which do you prefer?

Come night flying with us and I'll give you a choice: Land in an unlit confined area with or without NVG's...

Lofty

Have been involved in SAR utilising an acft with 4 axis auto pilot/autohover for several years. No problem with serviceability or keeping crews current. In fact there are five of these in country now and QES have nothing to do with it.

Lofty...

Your comments regarding night over water operations using a four axis 'Auto-Hover' equipped aircraft are as lame as your 'wish list' suggesting no approaches to unlit areas/no use of NVG's .

I have only had a very brief intro into NVG flying and for what it's worth, it would make my job a great deal safer!

Whilst 'QR' may have trouble maintaining their skill and equipment (not that they are contracted to do so for night over water ops), I can assure you that operators who are contracted to provide this service are very well trained and the aircraft very well maintained. Having been involved in night over water operations for the past 16 years (which includes the Bell 412 & 212 LN-450 ops, (NSCA)) The 4 axis 'auto-hover' system is very effective.


Clearance.

;)