PPRuNe Forums

PPRuNe Forums (https://www.pprune.org/)
-   Rotorheads (https://www.pprune.org/rotorheads-23/)
-   -   Ornge helicopter crash (https://www.pprune.org/rotorheads/516019-ornge-helicopter-crash.html)

SASless 6th Jun 2013 20:44

I hate to ask.....but what sort of patient were they dispatched to pick up? What kind of medical problem did the patient have?

Could the flight have waited till daylight....after all it is getting light pretty early this time of the year.....unlike say February?

Adroight 6th Jun 2013 21:31


Aussie land - hats off to you guys, can't think of anything more demanding in aviation than trying to stay wings level (IMC)with poorly equipped cabs. I have been there many many times and it makes your skin creep.
I would not call an IFR AW139 with 3 crewmembers all on NVG poorly equipped. Australia are light years ahead of most countries when it comes to HEMS. Oh yes - and they fly SAR tasks as well.

Winnie 6th Jun 2013 22:32

@ SASless, as far as I know this was a patient transfer, airport to airport.

Probably not considered particularily risky, and a mission that would probably have been done multiple times a week.

Why this happened THIS time is the big question.

The machines are equipped to standards so why did this happen again, with a well trained crew...

H.

bladegrip 7th Jun 2013 07:51

Ornge
 
Arcal, SASless,

ROUTINE excellence is heroic! Emphasis on routine...

SASless 7th Jun 2013 12:07

Winnie....the question I posed refers to the "Urgency" not the Type of tasking.

Airport to Airport would make an Airplane the better choice.

Most Patient Transfers can wait for daylight....but where this happened the level of medical care available at the location where the Patient was located ...may play a role in raising the Urgency.

I have flown in some awful weather at night to fetch some fellow who had a broken arm or lacerations....while painful...few folks die of broken arms or wounds that are not bleeding........if you get my point.

If I recall properly....the Patient was fetched by Airplane following the crash.

So...it would be interesting to know exactly what the situation was re the Patient to see if Ornge uses some sort of filter to determine if an aircraft is launched or if they respond to every request without assessing the priority somehow.

pilot and apprentice 7th Jun 2013 15:26

SAS: I'll state some obvious background first.

The Ornge operation runs as an ambulance with a rotor, not an emergency service per se. Just as an ambulance may be rushing to the scene of an accident it may also be tasked with routinely shuttling patients between hospitals.

Because of the massive geographic area covered, many taskings to remote areas/communities were to take a patient from a land ambulance (that responded to the initial call) to allow that asset to return to active service rather than being held up for hours traveling to the nearest [appropriate] medical facility. The government has created a wonderful infrastructure of helipads along highways, in remote communities, and hospital pads to aid this way of doing business. A helicopter may be used in lieu of a plane to avoid an ambulance ride at each end to get to and from the airports.


Most Patient Transfers can wait for daylight....
In the days when I was there, a busy base will likely spend the day shift responding to 'emergency' or scene calls and the quieter night shift conducting transfers. The Ministry of Health dispatch had land, rotary, and airplane assets at their disposal and may launch more than one asset to a critical accident/emergency or pick and choose an asset as they saw fit.

They prioritized their calls and the helicopter could be retasked to a higher priority call mid flight. The crew was never informed of patient details prior to accepting a call. We would be given a location of pickup and destination and then decided if the flight was feasible.

I'll add that, in my opinion, NVFR and IFR helicopter operations were not dangerous in themselves. Rather, they had different risks to be managed and deserved respect.

RL77CHC 8th Jun 2013 03:19

Flight Paramedics
 
Very well described Pilot and Apprentice.

In British Columbia, the ALS crews or advanced life support, tasked to the scene call aircraft had an enormous amount of training. Seven years plus of trauma & medical training on top of their practical experience.

The majority of the Doctors at the small hospitals were very relieved to see the ALS crew when a patient turned critical and needed an expedited transfer to a facility offering a high level of care.

It wasn't uncommon for the paramedics to assist our Doctors in the ER when a higher care facility wasn't an option. I would imagine the paramedics are no different in Ontario.

As for the flying, we never thought twice about IFR when I used to fly on the Ambulance. Check the Metar/TAF, freezing levels, make sure you have a legal first and second alternate, file your flight plan and go.

I can't think of a single Captain on the operation that was any different. The S76A is an incredible IFR platform. Given the choice of low level, marginal wx on NVG's or hand flying at 4000 feet in solid IMC, the latter is much less stressful.

skadi 8th Jun 2013 06:51

The crash happened within the first minute of the flight:

ORNGE helicopter crash: Investigator sketches out final minute | Toronto Star

skadi

Outwest 8th Jun 2013 07:11

More accurate and reasonable numbers now on the swath dimensions...as I mentioned earlier the trees are probably only about 5 or 6 meters high there.

rotornut 16th Jun 2013 02:33

Ornge suspends night flights to 58 remote pads
 
ORNGE suspends night flights at remote sites across Ontario | Toronto Star

[email protected] 17th Jun 2013 20:30

Perhaps ORNGE should just equip their crews with NVG if they want to make things safer.

Out of interest I was conducting some flyaway practice the other night from a 200' cliff-winching situation with me on NVG and the other pilot without. Although he could see the outline of the cliffs and the horizon, he struggled to maintain an acceleration to above 30 kts because he was flying into a black hole of no references (the sea). With NVG, not only did I have a much better view of the cliffs and an excellent horizon but I could see texture on the water which gave me visual speed and height cues to back up the instrument indications.

Now we used to fly all sorts of non-NVG approaches back in the 80s, to Nato Ts, upturned buckets with dayglo tape on, cans of burning kerosene and guys holding their torches and YES, they were manageable (with care and lots of training) but given the choice between returning to those techniques and using NVG then goggles are an absolute no-brainer.

nomorehelosforme 17th Jun 2013 20:34

NVG
 
Surely these should be standard issue to any EMS crew worldwide, employers and clients need to look at the benefits and not initial costs!

SASless 18th Jun 2013 01:12

NVG's is the ONLY way to fly Night.....any other way and you are only playing Blind Man's Bluff!

Devil 49 18th Jun 2013 13:23

NVGs for any night VFR flight beyond high cultural lighting areas! The difference between aided night and unaided is not quite night and day, but nearly so. I can see farther at night aided than I can most days, almost too much...

pilot and apprentice 18th Jun 2013 14:53

I've hesitated to weigh in on this as I agree that NVG's are a great tool and make NVFR both safer and easier. They would also add another big cost to an operation that has spent a lot of money to stay out of the flight environment that NVG's are designed for.

The question I will pose is: are those of you saying to just buy the NVG's actually looking at the job that Ornge does?

In my mind, it is the same as saying that no one should be conducting IFR unless they have synthetic vision. It would make the acquisition of visual reference much easier and increase SA.

The Ornge operation is only conducting night operations to established helipads/LZ's or airports. All are marked with lights or retroreflective cones. The SOP's were clear and appropriate to the role.

I would wager that if an objective and dispassionate assessment is made of what effect NVG's would have on the Ornge role, as it now stands, the result would be minimal. That would change if there was a need to respond to unprepared sites, navigate en route below MOCA, etc.

NVG's have their advantages, their limitations, and their place. STARS makes good use of them in western Canada to allow VFR navigation in higher terrain, but that terrain is not an issue in Ontario. Horses for courses.

Shawn Coyle 19th Jun 2013 12:13

No sooner had my article on 'No such thing as Night VFR' gone to Skies magazine than this accident happened.
NVGs make the difference - without them it's impossible to have 'visual' conditions away from cultural lighting.

SASless 19th Jun 2013 12:26

PA,

I got my NVG experience in a dark corner of the world....that is well known for Haze. We used them for all Night Operations from one skid roof top landings to cruising around snooping on folks with FLIR and ordinary Vanilla Night Flying.

I have landed in amongst the Piney Woods to unlit, unprepared, natural clearings during nights with overcasts and minimal celestrial lighting....using no external lights of any kind (the worst possible situation). At a hover....with the naked eye....one could not make out the ground or trees...but we could operate quite safely on the NVG's.

NVG's are worth the investment for any....any.....Night Flying. Add a IR Filter to your Night Sun and it gets even better. Spotting Light sources with NVG's is amazing. We watched the strobes of Airliners from well over two hundred miles away. Flashlights shine like Beacons.

NVG's have their limitations....but I will gladly accept 20/40 vision with a 40 degree arc of view over being nearly blind at night.....anytime!

You keep you head and eyes moving and it is simply amazing how much you can see....what you can see.... that you cannot and will not see without the NVG's.

Add them to a fully IFR Aircraft and Crew and that is as safe as you can get equipment wise. That would allow ORNGE to return to doing what they did before the recent change and do so safely.

pilot and apprentice 19th Jun 2013 13:06

SAS, I agree with all you say about NVG's. But they would not be going back to what they did...they never did it. That was my point.

Like all these discussions, more kit and crew is better.

[email protected] 19th Jun 2013 16:34

PandA, you are correct that 99% of the ORNGE operation probably wouldn't benefit massively from NVG because the transit and approach phases are safe enough the way they have been flown.

But, that 1% which is the night, unaided transition from the hover to the IFR cruise is where NVG would make a huge difference - low speed IFR flight is never good in a helicopter (without the appropriate autopilot transition modes) but that is what the crews are being asked to do on a regular basis on departure and that is where this sad (but seemingly avoidable) accident happened.

ralphmalph 19th Jun 2013 17:05

I love NVG. But in this case was there a well lit HLS with markers and clearway....?

i'm not sure NVG do much in the first few seconds after takeoff unless you take off from an NVG pad....

Otherwise you are gashing the "flip your goggs down" routine we all did in NI with luck...

Either use a properly lit HLS.....or go black.

Mixing it is bad news.

(yes I know that cultural lights are always a factor.....but we can minimise where we can the risk of stray light on NVS)


All times are GMT. The time now is 05:50.


Copyright © 2024 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.