Shell Management, I have to take exception to your comment. I retired into the US HEMS system and found the flying very rewarding and safe. The key to that safety was my ability to make go/nogo decisions unhampered by upper management (Omniflight, CJ Systems, AMC). Any pressure to go would have been self imposed. Having flown out of a remote South Western mountain base in single engine Bell 206s and A-Stars it was nice knowing that the only weather reporting available was my mark one eyeball. No one could or would ever dispute my call.

Each one of the mishaps you listed have there own story. As an example, the La Crosse mishap was a single pilot IFR certified aircraft with a SPIFR certified pilot that was not permitted to fly IFR due to a recent change in the operational vender. The FAA requires the new vender to train and certify the previous venders already certified pilot. As such the crew and aircraft capabilities were not available.

In the end it all boils down decisions made by the PIC. I believe that the term the NTSB frequently uses with respect to the cause of many mishaps is; “An unprofessional decision by the PIC”. Once again many can argue the number of pilots and engines but it all come down to the PIC.

(gear)
I think that a generalization blind to the demographics of demand and supply capability. Especially if it were based on a comparison to old blighty where we others could generalize that all is laid on by ER, and the scope of operational area is postage stamp size.

(expertise)
The slur against our rotary brethren stateside is not necessary.


This is a most confusing statement, do you mean for or from?

Are you implying that they have used their unmentionables instead of their head to made the wrong decision to go, or used them for decision making instead of using their head?

SM,
I have to take exception to your last comment too.For every accident that makes the news in a big way (and each one is one too many---admittedly) there are hundreds of flights being routinely completed by people ,like me, with a minimum of fuss.
Given the unique geography and regulatory framework of the US ,I think that is pretty darn good. For you to imply otherwise is flat out despicable.
As to the guy who parked in the carport, well, they completed the transport, took a decision to avoid weather,landed,went home to their families and returned to collect a perfectly serviceable aircraft later. In my book that was an A+ performance and I work for that particular company's competition!
Maybe ,as SASLess has said, we do not appreciate Govt .spoon feeding us and maybe,just maybe my testicles have more sense than your management brain.
Have a happy 2012. And,SM, just try and be happy every now and then.Please!
Alt3.

As an Ex HEMS Pilot (UK AS355 Unstabilsed Day/Night Capability) I have been fascinated by this thread.

Jack Carson. You do us all a disservice. If it is indeed "All down to the decisions taken by the PIC" please consider which outfit below you would like to make your particular decisions in:

1. Balloon, equipped with sextant and plum-bomb line for altitude. A Packet of sticking plasters, pair of washing up gloves and 2 x aspirin.

OR

2. State of the art ME-MPH IFR with modern lifesaving and first aid treatment equipment. Moving map/GPS/FMS/EFIS etc.


This thread just goes to prove we are all our own worst enemy because we are by nature optimists. We try to make the very best of what we are given.

But we need to be saved from ourown folly and eagerness. Thats what good regulation provides. An opportunity to set up an operation with the best possible chance of success. Embrace regulation and go one step further, mke it work for the better. Force the regulators to get tough.

I completed 1500 HEMS missions in my trusty old AS355 with no autopilot, often at night. At the time bright, shiny new machines in the same category were getting invented almost every day. Bells, whistles and computers. All designed to make life easier and therefore safer. I looked on in awe and wonder and not one day went by where I did not miss the autopilot. 30 seconds to look at a map without wobbling around. 1 minute to be able to program the awkward Trimble Transpac GPS at 300 feet AGL trying to reach the casualty without the harrowing fear of CFIT.

"Ahh! but a man's reach should exceed his grasp, or what's a heaven for"

Flying EMS at Night in a B206 is not even a remotley sensible thing to try and do. If you are actively doing this kind of thing I feel very, very sorry for you, your medical team and your patients and concerned for all your safety.

I urge you to truly understand how these accidents come about and take all steps in your power to not become one of them. Fight for better equipment. Fight for better training. And for God's sake, use accidents like these as justification for your struggle rather than your prowess. Do not stumble on in denial believing what you are doing is safe. The facts prove that it is not.

On the other hand, technology, unsupported by training and checking and most important of all, recency, is worst than no technology at all. Many SPIFR/MPIFR accidents have written this argument in blood.

For all of you in HEMS/EMS. Keeping making those tough calls. Fly within your own limits and not necessarily the lower limits afforded by the regs.

If you are under contract to a health service, try to remember you Company was probably the lowest bidder. Treat their pressure accordingly!!

Above all, every EMS/HEMS Helicopter starts every mission loaded with live, healthy humans on board. The worse the accident you are attending, the less likely the victims will survive. Therefore consider just how appropriate the risks are that you take to try and save one person who might not survive against the risks of losing the healthy humans you already have on board. For HEMs crews these are the tough calls that have to be made. I wish you all luck and skill in your continued judgements.

For Shell Management. You message is sound but the messenger sucks! Sort that sh*t out man!!

My Best Regards to you all.

The only 'hand-wringing' that I see comes from your side of the pond, just as in this thread.

There are literally hundreds of flights that take place every night in the US, in mostly single-pilot, single-engine helicopters, and very few result in accidents. Probably more take place in a 24-hour period than in an entire year in England. I don't know the exact numbers, but I doubt it would be very far from that. So there will naturally be more accidents in the US, because there are orders of magnitude more flights. Properly planned and flown, night flight is safe enough. But there will always be those whose ego, need to be a hero, or whatever, outweighs good judgment, and no amount of regulation will stop idiocy. Regulation has slowed it down, though, and there are fewer accidents caused by weather than before. Most programs use NVGs now, and that helps. There is an effort to get autopilots that work in small helicopters, and that will help even more, if decent ones can be certified. Things are getting better, slowly, but accidents won't cease to happen, not overnight nor in the long run. We will continue to find new ways to kill ourselves and our passengers.

No, you will keep using the same old ways of doing that - NVG single pilot at night just invites worse decision making and increased cockpit workload - the result will be the same, sadly.

The ' it's bigger and better in the US' argument doesn't hold water, neither does the ' no amount of regulation will stop idiocy' concept.

You said yourself Now I'm not saying that if some regulation does some good then more regulation will do more good but your own argument points to the fact that ONLY regulation will make HEMS safer.

Self regulation hasn't reduced gun crime, self regulation didn't stop bankers wrecking the world economy and self regulation won't stop needless deaths in an industry that is supposed to save life not waste it.

As for hand-wringing, every EMS crash reported on PPrune comes from posters in the US - if there is not concern for why it is happening, why post it on a discussion forum?

The facts are fairly simple. The US EMS industry does retain the old tried and true methods of killing themselves. The Stats show Night alone is the biggest factor in fatal accidents....especially when combined with Marginal Weather....simply because the Human Eye cannot see much in the dark.

The Industry tries to compensate for that by going to NVG's....which as anyone with experience with new generation NVG's...is the only way to fly in the Dark. Thus...there is an improvement underway.

Marginal weather compounded by two factors...one fixable by techology....that being the lack of adequate weather reporting for the routes/areas most EMS helicopters must fly...and pre-flight decision making which cannot be fixed by techology have yet to be adequately dealt with.

There is improvement in the weather reporting arena...but there is a long way to go yet.

Pilot decision making is always going to be the Achilles Heel of EMS flying as not one of us are clairvoyant. Add in the fact that even the very best made decision is limited by the accruacy of the information that it was based upon. Which takes us back to the weather reporting and trying to guess what the weather actually is and shall be when we go flying especially at night.

Then...we have the raw fatal fact that way too many of us are not making the right decisions for any number of reasons. Some of these NTSB described "Unprofessional Decisions" border on suicide as when reviewed by others on clear blue and twenty two days....defy logical explanation.

Did I mention the FAA in any of the above or how a new Regulation alone will improve the situation? We have plenty of rules and regulations, industry standards, certification requirements, and all that....but all it takes is bad judgement or a bad decision and the result is the same.

I flew EMS in an un-Sas'd VFR Only BO-105 (the next thing to a Jet Ranger) right up to a fully decked out Bell 412 SPIFR machine. My experience and that of others....remained the same....bad weather compounded by bad decisions and believing legal IFR currency confused as being IFR Proficiency is a dead certain killer of EMS crews.

Until that situation is cured....there may be new ways found to kill ourselves...but they will be few and far between and the old fashioned ways will still continue to thin the herd.

The best of all worlds is to stay out bad weather while flying twin engined...two piloted...fully kitted out SPIFR helicopters while using NVG's.

The problem is paying for it.....as someone must either in Dollars or if you do not....in blood.

Sas, I agree with all you have said there but giving the same poor decision makers NVG just invites them to push on further or go lower because they can see the ground. Then when it all goes wrong and they are back to IIMC it is still that lack of proficiency that will kill them.

Surely the need for proper IF currency and proficiency is the regulation that is needed here - yes it will require the operators to foot the bill but an hour a month per pilot is still much cheaper than a new helicopter and crew.

NVGs are good but aren't the full answer. As Crab says, there needs to be an IFR option too, because if the goggles do finally become unworkable due to worsening weather, the pilot will then find himself far more deeply into IMC than if he had been using unaided eyesight. Been there, done it , seen it, then not seen it, if you get my drift.

If the pilot has no IFR fall back / abort / climb on instruments to a safe altitude plan, then it's possibly game over.

Because the pilot is now flying at night, in IMC, in a non-IFR equipped, unstabilised aircraft, having done no regular IF training, below safety altitude, in the hills, over sparsely lit terrain. With a pair of toilet roll tubes to look down. At least until he can find a spare hand to sort them out and start even thinking about an instrument scan, possibly whilst in an unintentional UP at low level above rising terrain.

Crab and Shy.....I fully and completely agree with your thoughts on the matter.

The situation is the Training Captain shows up at the remote base...does some ground school maybe...an hour of flight...or so....then in the most common scenario...does a check ride and you are now Legal, Current, and in most folk's mind...."Proficient" to conduct IFR flight following IIMC.

If that happens to be your trusty steed with no SAS, no Auto-Pilot, and you happen to be single pilot.....it all too often means a tragedy is about to happen.

You want to have some fun....attend a Safety Meeting of Active EMS Pilots and ask simple questions and watch them start squirming.

My favorite is along the lines of this.....

Do you carry a Sectional Map (standard issue 1:500,000 VFR Nav Map) on each flight?

How often do you use the Map while in flight?

How often do you use the Map at Night in flight?

If one starts by asking them to respond by holding their hands up....by the time they answer the last question there are darn few hands up if they are honest.

Reading a Map at night in an single piloted unstablized helicopter...with the basic issued factory lighting...when you are in your 50's (think "glasses" here)....is not a simple task. If you added NVG's to that....do you look under them....or flip them up to read the map?

Do we then rely upon the GPS to find our way around? What if it is just a standard unit and does not show a map with obstacles identified?

Most EMS units will advertise a 150NM radius of operation....there is a lot of ground in a cirlce that big...to be flown on "local knowledge" standards!

SASless, The market here is much smaller than that of the USA for obvious reasons. However, the UK's Air Ambulance network (funded by charity in the main) is much greater than it was before the regulations were tightened up.

BTW, you skipped answering my questions asked of you on the previous page at post #72. You changed the subject to mines rescue!

Is this the question Shy?

The most effective way would be to adopt the UK method....ban it! If one does not do it...one cannot have an accident.

My recipe....

Work like heck encouraging Pilots and Crews to take more time considering the weather, route, and reason for the flight before launching. I would require a pre-takeoff briefing of the Med Crew by the Pilot or (P-I-C) on the reasons "Why" the flight is going to be undertaken and not just the reasons why a flight was declined.

If one cannot articulate the reasons and factors that contribute to the decision to go....as well as why not to go....then that should be a warning sign.

Over a period of time....an inconsistent explanation would stand out during the brief and hopefully someone would question that.

That process would also slow down the pace just a bit....which in the middle of the night...with a pilot wakiing from a nap or sound sleep....would not be a bad thing but still allow for a timely departure.

Educating pilots and Med Crews about dangerous weather and reviewing in detail as many fatal accidents as possible citing the chain of events that led to the crash would also be a good thing. Judgement cannot be taught but it can be improved by education.

I also believe in written debriefs or after action reports. Documenting the existing weather prior to takeoff....and later comparing the forecasts and anticipated weather against that encountered would also work as a tool to improve awareness of weaknesses in the weather reporting and evaluation of weather by crews.

Most fatal accidents are a result of bad weather at night...thus that is where the focus needs to be. Prevention is far more effective than any other measure....that comes down to using the best information possible and making a logical, business-like, professional decision.

Some of the changes that have taken effect over the past few years has improved the situation....the accident rate is showing that. NVG's are an improvement, raising the miniumums for Night VFR helped, and requiring Operators to operate centralized dispatch/operations centers has helped.

As long as helicopters fly in the dark, in remote areas, far from weather reporting stations, and humans are involved....the potential for tragedy shall stay with us.

Knowing when to Chicken Out is the key to any pilot's continued longevity! There is not a rule book anywhere that can beat that for effectiveness!

Getting the folks to know when to Chicken Out and encouraging them to do so is the key.

Again, the UK haven't banned it; only you seem to think they have.

But they have mandated that better equipped aircraft are used for public transport by night.

Many thanks to the hard work people at the JAA.

This thread makes for depressing reading...

Also I wish people who either haven't read it fully, or are totally ignorant of the difference in the general level of equipment between a VFR single engine helicopter, and an IFR certified multi engine helicopter would stop banging on about engines...

Chances are this was not an engine failure, but more likely LOC/CFIT. Therfore the point we are trying to get across is:

Single engine:-

Generally unstabilised, WITH NO SAS, autopilot, no duplicated systems, or IFR certified instruments and equipment

Multi engine:-

Generally stabilised WITH SAS & autopilot, duplicated systems & IFR certified intruments and equipment

It may be possible to have some such equipment fitted to a single engine helicopter, but MOST DO NOT. That is the difference. If you want to fit such equipment to a VFR single and fly it around at night in bad weather there will be less chance of crashing into a hillside, but as many here have said repeatedly it comes down to:-

a. cost
b. they don't want change

Therefore similiar accidents will continue to happen and lives will be lost. An totally unbelievable and entirely avoidable situation. :ugh:

Bladcrack

I don't think it's anything to do with not wanting change. If we are talking about here in the UK it will never happen because although this could save many more lives, the CAA would never allow it.

From the Griffin Accident Database......

UK Helicopter Fatal Accident Causes+/-



Fatal Accidents [By First Event]


Loss Of Control IMC (25.00%) 10

Spatial Disorientation (10.00%) 4

Other Weather (7.50%) 3

42.50 % of UK Helicopter Fatal Crashes are due to the the three causes listed above.

Any need for improvement in those numbers?


From the IHST 2009 report....a long quote but worth reading. bold print is my doing.

chopjock - i was referring to the US.

SASless - if the accident rate isnt zero there is always a need for improvement, wouldn't you agree? Not sure what your point is? Out of those statistics I think you will find there are very few, if any ME/IFR helicopters?

BC

Finding stats conveniently broken down for use is hard.

The CAA rightly breaks out Offshore Operations from On-shore as they are two very different environments and types of operation. The US NTSB data base has proven to be less than useful in a lot of ways and as always....one cannot just hang a hat on numbers alone.

I am sure there are comparisons somewhere about the accident rates of the UK and USA that if found would be interesting to consider.

Even the IHST quote combines Private Sector flying and Public Transport data which doesn't work well either.

SASless - I agree with what you say re stats being hard to interperet... However as we in Europe had JAA/JAR implemeted quite some time ago, maybe a fairer comparison would be US Vs JAA member states (grouped together) when it comes to accident stats rather than US Vs UK? Just a thought...

BC

Statistics can explain almost any side of an argument. Many have mentioned the tempo of US HEMS operations. Unless you have lived within our system it is hard to grasp the magnitude of what actually transpires each and every day and evening. At AMC alone there is an aircraft airborne with a patient continuously 24/7. For the most part the decisions to transport do not reside with the aircrews but with hospital staff and first responders. It is kind of a, you call, and we haul system. As such, the final responsibility for the actual conduct of flight resides with the PIC. He or she is given a whopping 3-5 minutes to decide GO versus NOGO.

Has this, non fatal, accident been missed?
Helicopter Crashes Near Rock Springs - The Rocket-Miner

http://rocketminer.static.adqic.com/...41359_573e.jpg

Its not on the NTSB website. Thats one way to reduce the accident rate.;)

Rock Springs
 

http://www.faa.gov/data_research/acc...a/J_1214_N.txt

Passengers of downed helicopter identified - The Rocket-Miner

http://rocketminer.static.adqic.com/...26498_7226.jpg

The flight was a non-HEMS

Despite what some others may think, statistics must be the key to steering the evolution of safer US HEMS operations. Of course the information needs to be critically examined, for undoubtedly misleading conclusions can readily be promoted, but that's normal.

There is no doubt the scale of the US HEMS operation is huge - 850 helos flying around 400,000 hours per year. With major operators like Air Methods and Omniflight, the vast majority of flights are no doubt very professionally run and perfectly safe. However being a HEMS crew still rates as about the most risky occupation in the US, with a fatality rate of 113/100,000 employees, twice that of general aircrew.

It is widely known that the FAA and the NTSB are concerned about the high accident rates. Accidents are much more likely at night and mainly due to CFIT, LOC in IMC or hitting obstacles. But it also seems that the response from the NTSB and FAA shows concern but perhaps not sufficient urgency for action. Recommendations have been mainly for more training, better flight planning, radalts, NVGs and an autopilot if two pilots are not carried. All in an indeterminate timescale. In reviews readily available, it is interesting that there is precious little mention of the benefit of IFR twin use, even at night, albeit it a cost. Indeed it is hard to even find any mention of the number of IFR twins versus VFR singles utilised by HEMS business.

And business it clearly is. Since funding for many flights has been provided by Medicare (quoted at around $20k per flight) there has been a dramatic increase in the EMS helicopter fleet. Which the industry understandably says means better response times. Interestingly the amount paid by Medicare to the operators seems to be fixed. So if you operate a B206 you make a lot more profit than an EC135 or A109, for example.

It is clear from the posts on this forum that there is great support for not changing regulations to mandate use IFR twins, as used exclusively in Europe. This is entirely understandable - the cost increases would undoubtedly reduce the US EMS fleet significantly with the loss of jobs, though a requirement for two pilots may compensate for this, to an extent. Furthermore the current evidence does indicate that mechanical (eg engine) failure is a minimal cause of accidents. Having said that, as has been mentioned here, it is not so much the second engine but the IFR capability and redundancy that comes hand in hand that is the big advantage, especially for the more hazardous night flights.

However the US might actually be able to do us in Europe a huge favour here. There is no doubt European aviation is stifled by extensive regulation. Excessive, maybe. US HEMS ops experience is huge -much greater than we have. From comments on this forum, there seems to be a dominant US perception that use of single engine VFR helos for night EMS is fine, subject to implementation (eventually) of the kind of recommendations the NTSB make - particularly IMC training, TAWS/radalt, NVGs, autopilot. If well equipped singles are indeed safe enough, with such a scale of operations in the US, using twins and singles at night as well as day, compelling evidence should be able to be provided to support the approval of suitably equipped singles for IFR operations in both the US and Europe. If the data and statistics were solid, a lot of money could be saved. And again, the unique scale of US EMS ops should provide the evidence.

The problem is, it doesn't seem to. I have found no statistics to compare US single with twin EMS accident rates. Because perhaps the data doesn't exist. It needs to be though. If it does I'd like to see it. Surely there should be a logging system for all flights, which would include single/twin, IFR/VFR, day/night, duration, safely completed/risk factors/accident etc. The results would be fascinating, and provide much needed facts to supplement opinion.

Of course the Canadians would say they know the answer already. In nearly 250,000 flight hours since 1977 they have never had an EMS accident. But there again, they do only operate IFR twins with two pilots, and only use pre-surveyed sites at night. And with just 20 or so aircraft the pool is a fraction of that of the US, though rates should be comparable.

I suspect fewer Canadians get the benefit of a HEMS service as a result of a more expensive and limited service. But there again, what percentage of US HEMS flights are critical for life saving? What data is there on this? The US HEMS business is clearly a delicate balance between providing a huge ($2.5bn) industry that employs people and buys helicopters and parts etc, and one that cost-effectively saves lives.

Despite a number of requests on this forum, no-one has cited any detailed statistics to shed light on this issue. Maybe they do not exist. Cynics might say that a big part of the reason why is that some don't want to risk any awkward conclusions compromising the scale of a big industry.

Now clearly I've just very quickly tried to understand more about the issues as a European, non-HEMS ops pilot in order to constructively progress the debate. I look forward to comments from those with more direct knowledge!

My highlights in the quote......where is it written that the mission statement for HEMS...Helicopter EMS...is to "SAVE" lives?

My intent is to throw out a challenge to anyone in the Helicopter EMS business who thinks their express reason for being is "SAVING" lives!

I would submit...that kind of mindset is what kills Helicopter EMS crews.

I also will accept that lives are saved by the application of professional skills, protocols, and use of hi-tech equipment in the provision of the service Helicopter EMS crews are there to provide....that being the provision of safe, timely, efficient medical transportation of injured, ill, or hospitalized people.

Am I the only one who thinks that way?

Taken from the Air Methods Web site.....again...high lighting is mine.

SASless

Well if your only comment on my post is quibbling with my use of the term "saving lives" do I take it that you are broadly in agreement with the rest of it?

By saying "saving lives" I did not mean that was the only justification for use of HEMS. Other valid reasons would include for example improving the prognosis post serious injury and reducing expensive hospitalisation. Or, for those paying themselves and not by other's taxes, simply having a faster more comfortable transfer to hospital.

The vastly higher cost of HEMS compared with road ambulances certainly needs compelling justification if it is to be paid for by the public and not the end user. And of course making a significant contribution to the saving of lives must be a major reason.

To say that HEMS crews who believe they are saving lives are a liability to themselves is one of the most ridiculous things I've read! Many people have to work professionally knowing their services could influence life or death - just ask the SAR boys or surgeons, for example. I'm sure Crab feels quite able to rescue people and save lives without taking silly risks!

Rotorspeed,

I have yet to see such a well balanced post such as yours on this forum.Typically, it is a US Vs Europe discussion, with both sides defending their point of view vociferously.So, well done and thank you.
I am afraid that statistics you ask for probably do not exist.I think that is intentional. Most operators would like the status quo to persist.In fact, a Chief Pilot of a major EMS company is on record stating that twins/IFR capable helicopters don't necessarily enhance safety and cost way more to operate than the revenue they generate.Lawmakers who want to fix things are in the grip of lobbyist and the lobbyists work for the operators,not the patients or the folks generating the revenue.And so, the drumbeat carries on-----.
But, as a current EMS pilot, I will endorse what SAS less says.Right from the very beginning of an EMS career ,we are indoctrinated to beleive that we are NOT in the life saving business.We are not SAR.We are transportation on demand. It just so happens that the folks we transport are in need of medical help.Since most pilots are human enough to be pressurized into thinking otherwise, policies have been put inot place to take the emotion out of the picture. Ultimately, it is the pilot himself who has to make the call.If he puts that additional "white knight syndrome" pressure on himself, he will be guaranteed to make decisions that put people at risk.
Alt3.

rotorspeed,

I very much agree with your post....in content, tone, message, and style.

The "Life Saving" mentality I refer to is the unhealthy one...the one where when the Tone goes on the pagers...the "Type A's" charge forth to challenge Death and steal victims from the Grim Reaper....no matter the risk to themselves as after all...they are "Heroes" when they smack ol' Mother Earth at near Warp Speed one dark night in really ugly weather.

That excludes a great number of folks who are quite professional...dedicated to serving their fellow Man the best they can but in a logical, professional, safe manner.

Anyone experienced in the Helicopter EMS business knows exactly what kind of folks I am talking about.

As Alouette correctly states....the aviation folks tend to be more in tune with the mission statement than the medical crews riding in the back of the cab. Granted they are far more exposed to the part of the task that would give them that feeling while the Flight crew(s) are more removed from the hands on part of the medical mission.

You want to become very unpopular amongst medical folks....publically state that position and find out how quickly your stock falls with the med crew! Far more than a few pilots learned that the hard way....and once the Med Crew decides to run you off....you might as well pack your bags because the Operator shall invariably put the contract far above standing behind the pilot. (Unless there has been some Lightning strikes I have not heard about!)

I would also imagine that pro rata, the US accident rate seems higher because they fly inexorabily more ems trips than the europeans. Add to this the American way of doing things (which is not right nor wrong, simply "different");
then it might be that their safety record is on a par.
I simply find that the accidents - when they do happen, seem to be easily avoidable:ugh:

Some fairly recent IHST statistics.....

http://www.ihst.org/portals/54/ihss/...1_Overview.pdf

There are controlled studies on secondary transfers. They reduce mortality by 50%. Primary missions suffer from very little published data but what there is suggests a system crewed by doctors prevent death in serious head injuries only. So it is true they don't in general save lives.

It is not the same as being a surgeon. As a surgeon I can do anything within the limits of my equipment without any consideration except for my patient. As a pilot the need is for me to not use my equipment because of the addition of weather.

When I started in the US I actually had an experienced Nam pilot respond to my flight request with 'Nope not with this weather......is it serious?'

As a result my system has always operated a Chinese wall where the pilots don't know the medical indication and the medical crew don't know the met. And if one of my doctors even jokingly criticised a pilot he would be fired on the spot.

Sadly in the US some doctors still believe they are god although in fairness the driving force for helicopters is not the medical profession but the finance directors of the hospitals who need the ability to get high revenue patients in adequate numbers to fund regional services

Alouette3

Thanks for your comments. I certainly have respect for both US and European operations, and constructive debate may benefit both, long term. Your comments ref statistics - or lack of them - in the US don't surprise me!

SASless

Pleased we are converging on a common understanding of the issues here.

And both; I respect your comments ref pressure on some pilots if they are too focussed on the life saving element. It would be nice to think they would be professional enough not to be influenced, but alouette3 at least is at the coal face and SASless has loads of experience, so I'll take your points. I guess with far less regulational constraint than in Europe there is more scope for subjective go/no go decisions and therefore opportunity for the overt Type As, as you say SAS, to sometimes take too big a risk to try and save a life.

Homonculus; no big deal, but I still think the surgeon parallel has some relevance. There can still be pressures to expedite procedures to minimise operation duration. Having said that, the presentation of error is not as dramatic as a helo accident, I grant you!

The Rock Springs accident was not HEMS.... there is more than meets the eye to this... from another site:

Repetition & Boredom
 

I would like to begin by saying that this has been one of the best forum discussions I have participated in. More discussion groups like this consisting of professionals from around the world can and will effect change in the long term.

On another note, to follow up on SASless’ point concerning Life Saving Type “A” pilots, I believe that in many instances just the opposite may be a factor. Many operations here in the US have pilots that have been located in one position at one base for as long as 20 years. Boredom and complacency builds as veteran pilots routinely fly repetitive routes both day and night. As confidence builds, a pilot’s perceived ability to cope with more demanding conditions grow as well. This can lead to a point where an experienced pilot may back, he and his machine, into a corner.

Gordy,

A bit of snooping and it appears the aircraft belongs to an outfit based in Salt Lake City but does business in Alaska. The few places I looked show no public record for the actual names of the owners or head of Ops. I did find some names of folks in the Dispatch Center.

The company maintains a web site for those that are interested.


I did find this facebook reference to Guardian Flight in Rock Springs.

https://www.facebook.com/note.php?no...81344665214562

Looks like Rock Springs will be interesting.

Talking of US data there was a study done by NYU and published in Aviation Psychology and Applied Human Factors that looked at 4,755 helicopter accidents (all types of operations) from the NTSB database. The researchers compared the underlying causes and also the factors that differentiate daytime and nighttime helicopter accidents.

The number of fatal accidents occurring at night was reported as significantly higher than during the daytime. The combination of night flights and adverse weather conditions is shown to be particularly fatal in accidents.

If it is economics that drives the use of singles it is a pity that a well equipped IFR certified machine means a twin, irrespective of the pros and cons of engine number. I may have missed it here but oddly lack of weather data is also commonly raised as a reason to stay low and fly VFR.

The NTSB meeting on HEMS IIRC threw up many issues with the US HEMS business model. Yet it does feel that many are arguing for the status quo of special VFR, or at least NVIS assisted VFR, for purely economic reasons. Yet there are indications that HEMS is being used in the US for cases that in Canada, Europe, Australia etc would not justify a helicopter (the Maryland State Trooper accident for example), surely a waste of resource that if addressed would allow improvements in equipment, training etc.

As this source states:

...since an operator doesn’t get paid unless the helicopter carries a patient, there’s an incentive to fly the mission regardless of how adverse the conditions. And because operators are paid the same rate no matter what equipment they use, operators tend to use older helicopters, and to run them as inexpensively and as ill-equipped as possible.

The EMS Helicopter Industry's Business Model Leads to Unnecessary Crashes : Aviation Law Monitor


More on "Golden Hour" and Other Myths from the EMS Helicopter Industry explains:

The industry has oversold the need for EMS helicopters. The benefits simply do not outweigh the risks.

"Golden Hour" and Other Myths from the EMS Helicopter Industry : Aviation Law Monitor

There's no incentive in that equation for me to ever accept a flight. Eleven years, I've never had that decision questioned.
Take this to the bank, too: Crashes kill pilots, and in 43 years I've buried a fair few comrades. Kinda focuses my attention each and every time.

Ah yes, that nasty profit motive... You either believe in fairies or you don't.

I'm not competent to discuss 'the need for EMS helicopters' or the 'Golden Hour", I'm just a pilot. I would guess that the on-scene medical professionals directly responsible for the call and the insurance companies and government agencies that bear the costs of EMS have a better perspective. And, more objective than the source cited by "Shell Management".

Best advice for dealing with SM....."Consider the Source...ad ignore the Coment!":=