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.

;)

Sorry Lofty...your on your own.
 

Mate.....

Sorry but you are out of touch with modern Technology, FRMS's, NVG's, Auto Hover, and perhaps a heap of others....

And mate Charities are not Charities in Aviation....their a guise for making money!!!....and do a dam good job.

Red.

Lofty - if that really is your first post - welcome to Pprune!
I too am keen to see your NVG experience (and on what sort of NVG) that leads you to so categorically reject them.

Whilst I agree with some of your points , I find the sentiment of others (such as the NVG one) quite disagreeable. To stop outlandings or night winches reduces the ability of the helicopter to save lives. These manoeuvres can be accomplished with a high degree of safety - despite your personal reluctance. I also assume that you refuse to do them given your assesment of their safety? Or is that the organisation you worked for were unable to provide the high training levels required to make it a safe (in your opinion) operation?

And if it really is the black hole thing that you are concerned abouy - why not try NVG so you can SEE on the way down????

And what about the Canadians mentioned above by heedm, overwater night winching without autopilots/etc? How about the RAAF who used to do it in UH-1s? Because you personally find it a danger, should we restrict those with the resources to train and safely perform the operation when it is justified?

PS Red Wine - I plan to be at the May night conference - will I be drinking with you again?
:ooh:

The mainstay of the UK's SAR cover in the 60/ 70's was the Whirlwind. The old Whirly had no AP, not even a stick trim. Winching was a bit of fun, in manual throttle too. Seemed to work alright back then but time has moved on. SAR is probably the most demanding role anywhere. To be safe and effective, the best equipment, the best training, the best crews and the best system and organisation are needed. The problem comes when you try to hide a weakness or deficiency behind a strength, or even worse a perceived strength, somewhere else in the equation..

lofty2004 you really are out of it - time to stop playing with your cyclic, kick back and retire. Re charities - I work for one of the more prominent ones and I have NEVER been put under any sort of pressure by ANY member of management to do a job against my better judgement. In fact I am more likely to be questioned as to whether the job should proceed.
Robsrich - if singles are deemed to be capable of doing some of the EMS work then the A119 should be considered as the baseline.

Eagle 86
 

Thanks I have noted your comments. You guys are really bringing out some interesting points. Personally, I have taught NVIS/NVG and they are great. But you must have good training, supervision and currency. Anyone else wish to comment?

Quite right. It's something that seems to get forgotten when any discussion about civil use of NVG comes up, particularly with CASA. It's not easy and does require training but I don't think anyone is advocating the use of NVG in the same way as the military does. It should be used as a safety aid not a tactical aid. It used to be regarded as dangerous to go flying in the dark, or low flying, or in clouds and if you go back far enough it used to regarded as dangerous to go flying! We have developed training to learn how to cope with all of these situations and the regulators rules to ensure safe operations. The same can be done for this and the longer the regulators leave their heads in the sand the longer it will take to make any progress. I've obviously got it wrong but I always thought that they were there to help the industry progress not hinder it!!

Yeah guys... NVGs may be very nice BUT how do we get the Govts and various contracting customers to realise that first one has to walk and that means using the correctly equipped machines (IE IFR capable, stable, Medium Twins) AND Instrument training ...when this is a minimum requirement for EMS/ Rescue tasks THEN we can do the NVG thing with crews that would be ready to cope with the disciplines required.:\

I spent a couple of years in BASI and then the ATSB and had the opportunity to review and do some investigations involving helicopters at night.

The one thing that struck me was that often, the organisations did not fully comprehend what they were trying to acheive. They weren't clear about what they wanted, then fund, equip or train their people to do what they were doing. There often weren't strong supervisory aspects and much of the operations seemed like a good idea at the time without much appreciation in depth of the hazards the organisation or crews were facing. Rarely was there any true intent to do things less than the best way...more of not knowing what they didn't know.

Unfortunately, the result is often felt by the crew doing a mission or worse still, the patient. The industry really needs to establish universal minimum standards. No point waiting for CASA because it is under numerous pressures from different quarters. Is this something HAA should lead?

Just some thoughts.

In a sense I'd like to agree with Lofty.

I posted previously talking more about completing night overwater ops safely using technique, training, and technology. Of course, "safely" is relative and in truth danger continues to exist. This is where I begin to agree with Lofty. If I had a wish list, it wouldn't include wishing that I get sent out to do some of these missions, thinking only of myself.

However, I'm not entirely selfish. I like rescuing people. I like living in a country where people are prepared to accept some danger to help others in distress. I even enjoy some of the riskier missions due to the challenge and personal pride of successfully completing same.

I also have limitations, a family of my own, and a desire to continue living. I can't and won't complete every mission. Some people that need the service will die if situations aren't ideal. Maybe new technology will reduce that number, but will never eliminate it.

To balance all of this with what Lofty said, I think the starting point should not be "what equipment do we need?". The starting point should be "Which missions should we be able to complete?". Once that question is answered, then you must fit your machine and crews with what is required, as has been discussed. If you can convince your country that losing the victims that can't last through the night is acceptable, when you consider the cost of properly equipping the machines and the risk to the operators, then don't provide any rescue service at all. Like what Lofty said.

Matthew.

Well said heedm.
Where is that masked man (Lofty)?

Oggs: The HAA night conference in May will attempt to do just that - to set minimum standards for helicopter NVFR that are acceptable to a larger part of the Oz/NZ industry. The biggest question will be wether to have a simple standard for all to follow (ie tighten up the Oz/NZ regs) or set a minimum standard that requires operators to buy into on thier own initiative dependant upon their own mission needs/funding levels. Be there or be square!!

An update on Australasian thinking
 

I have posted a recent HAA PR to Flight International. Although it is a bit long for this thread, it may help us focus. Once again your comments are really appreciated. We need your feedback to help our night guys. (We have about fifty attending so far.)

Press release for Flight International – HAA Industry Conference 17-21 May 2004

The Helicopter Association of Australasia has become concerned about the run of night accidents since 2000. HAA President Rob Rich told Flight International’s Emma Kelly four helicopters had crashed at night since 2000 causing the loss of eight lives. Three survivors were injured. Considering the low number of hours flown at night, by the 38 SAR/EMS operators in Australia and another 12 in New Zealand, the trend was alarming.

Rich also said his association’s review of UK and US night accidents confirmed that something was very wrong in the helicopter industry. The US loss rate was showing a marked increase, according to HAA researchers. As a result a HAA Night Operations Conference was held at Newcastle, NSW in November 2003. The meeting had a sombre tone as many attendees were still grieving the loss friends in the two Queensland accidents.

The HAA used four case studies for discussion. The most recent accident involved a Bell 407 which had departed Mackay for Hamilton Island, Queensland to collect a patient. Shortly after departure, when over water, the helicopter was observed by radar to make erratic turns and then plunge into the ocean. The pilot and two crewmen were killed.

An even more serious accident occurred several years ago when a Bell 206 was returning to Rockhampton from a remote cattle station with child patient and his mother. The helicopter ran low on fuel and diverted to the nearest town. Unfortunately, the area had become fog bound and the medical helicopter ran out of fuel and crashed killing the pilot, two crewmen the patient and his mother.

About a year later, a Bell 407 from the same base was called to rescue some yachtsmen who had run aground on a reef 125 nm off the coast. Whilst attempting to drop a life raft, the machine hit the water. Fortunately the pilot and crewman were not seriously injured. An IFR Bell 412 arrived from Brisbane soon after and seeing that all survivors were not in danger, waited until dawn to winch them to safety. An odd outcome of this flight was the yachtsmen were later arrested for attempting to smuggle a large quantity of drugs into Australia on the damaged yacht.

Across the Tasman Sea, a New Zealand female pilot was outbound from Masterton in a BK 117 to collect a patient when she encountered poor weather conditions near rugged terrain. Whilst trying to navigate her way along a familiar day route on the GPS, which took her through a valley, the GPS indicated they were off track. She made an emergency climb to reach a safe altitude. However, when almost clear of the highest terrain, the BK 117 hit a tree and was severely damaged. The tree penetrated the cockpit and injured the pilot. The undercarriage was all but ripped off and the tail fins were damaged. The pilot managed to regain control and limped back to base. Fire crews had to cut away the skids and the helicopter was landed on a pile of old tyres.

When asked by Flight International if there was a common factor, Rich said: “Yes, the common factor is that all these flights were operating under night visual rules.” Australia has comprehensive night visual regulations which may need adjusting after the HAA consolidates the input from their members. New Zealand like many other counties does not have specific night visual rules and relies on the operator’s operations manual and training system for risk management.

President, Rob Rich emphasised that night IFR operators seemed to have less of a problem than the lesser equipped and trained night visual only operators. We seem to have forgotten the lesson the UK and US learned several decades ago - night visual only capable helicopters must be crewed by pilots who are IFR trained and current, either by simulated IFR conditions or in a suitable simulator. Night visual flight in marginal weather or over areas with few lights such as water or the Australian outback is really an IFR operation. These conditions can place a terrible load on a crew who may not be IFR trained or IFR current, especially if the helicopter only has the basic instruments for flight at night.

The attendees at the Newcastle conference decided to meet again in 2004 to continue the discussion on night operations and propose industry standards for the regulators, i.e. the Australian Civil Aviation Safety Authority and the Civil Aviation Authority of New Zealand. Further, delegates wanted to raise other operational and safety issues concerning day emergency service operations, such as the number of hoist cable failures and fire fighting issues.

As a result the HAA is hosting the HAA Industry Conference at the Nara Sea World Resort, Queensland from 17-21st May 2004. Rich said the interest is very strong and if the quality of speakers is the same as the Newcastle conference then we will achieve a great deal for our industry. Monday and Tuesday are for night operations, Wednesday and Thursday cater for SAR/EMS/Police/Customs/Fire fighting people and Friday is the first HAA tourist conference. This segment of the industry has had avoidable losses also, according to Rich.

In reply to Flight International’s question about CASA and CAA NZ involvement, Rich said “The New Zealand and Australian regulators are attending as observers. The regulators have to face two problem areas; firstly, the identification of the shortcomings of night visual emergency operations and the development of joint HAA/regulator education programmes to stop operators going beyond the capabilities of their crews and equipment; and secondly, the introduction of night vision devices and all that goes with this monumental step forward in capability.

In conclusion, Rob told Emma the introduction of the night vision devices such as NVG is being held up by the lack of suitable legislation, especially in Australia. The CAA NZ is less concerned in this regard as they place more responsibility on the operators and several are already using the devices. CASA, however, does not have the resources both in manpower or experience to draft legislation needed under the Australian Civil Aviation Act. The only solution is for the HAA and CASA to form a joint writing team and get the project underway as soon as possible. Night vision devices such as NVG are a safer way into the future!

FINAL THOUGHTS ON NIGHT OPERATIONS
 

On behalf of the Helicopter Association of Australasia and those working with us to make night operations safer, I would like to thank you all helping us to find a better way to do things.

I really appreciate your comments and the effort you have made in replying to this thread. I will collate your replies and present them in an Annex to the Conference Papers which will be handed out to all delegates, (about 70+) as they arrive and also emailed out on Tue 11 May '04 to those on our HAA and Conference lists.

Should you have any more thoughts or want to add something to your comments, then we can accept your input until 0500Z (GMT) on Tue 11 May.

As mentioned previously, we are having our 2004 HAA Industry Conference at the Nara Sea World Resort, Gold Coast, Australia from 17-21 May '04. The first two days are for night operations where we are hoping to tidy up the discussions launched in Nov '03.

More info: www.haa.net.au

Should anyone need a copy of the Post Conference Report please leave your details at: [email protected]

It would be a good idea to leave a snail mail address as the Report maybe too big for email. Also we will have papers handed out by speakers. (The HAA will cover the cost of printing and airmail postage as a service to our industry.)

In conclusion, let us not forget those who have been killed or injured trying to help others at night. Hopefully, our gathering will find better ways to establish "Industry Best Practice."

If we can save one night accident in the future, then you have all done your best!

Regards,

Rob Rich
President
Helicopter Association of Australasia
www.haa.net.au
Email: [email protected]

Hi Rob

The conference sounds a good idea and hopefully will provide some sound results.
Having said that, I think the cost, especially for non members is very high and will prevent individuals from coming. No doubt some companies will pay up but casual rescue pilots like me can't afford those costs.:(

Nigel - please call
 

Thanks for your feedback. You can join as an associate non-voting for only $49.50. Maybe you can sing for your supper? Call Rob 0415 641 774.

HAA Conference Great Success
 

A big thanks to the 100 plus delegates and observers who attended the 2004 HAA Industry Conference at Sea World Nara Resort on the Gold Coast, Queensland Australia, from 17-21 May '04.

Besides the programmed events, some hardware was on display. The GeoSim Simulator, a NVG cockpit lighting display simulator, NVG ANVIS 9 and a Leo III FLIR were available.

First night NAS (Airspace) people tossed out some snacks and heavy drinks to get us talking about the new aerodrome procedures. These are the outside controlled airspace stuff. They got some really good feedback from the heli-drivers.

Matt Attwood from the USA stole the show with his presentation on NVIS ops and training and writing workable rules. About a dozen US EMS operators are using NVG and about another 30 are waiting paperwork or devices. So the new NVIS stuff is getting closer.

The post conference reports will be available in about a week and the offer still stands if you want to get a free copy. I have already received about fifty requests from my previous posting. Need a copy? Let us know on email: [email protected]

I missed the delegates Wednesday recon mission along the line nearby of bars. Some of those stories being told took a long time because some didn’t get to bed until 3:00AM. Well done.

But there were still smiles next day (and red eyes).

I will put some summarized session reports on this thread as the sub-committee guys get their notes finalised.

To those who presented and ran the workshops we owe you a great deal.

Thanks again,

Rob Rich
President
HAA
www.haa.net.au
[email protected]

For a copy of conference notes, etc.

Email above should read :

[email protected]

Ooops

Rob