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)

AW4EVER 10th Jul 2016 06:58

HI,
AW169, this is the future for HEMS and other Ops...
AW189 Long range, AW139 SAR.
It is just an opinion..

Cheers,

tottigol 10th Jul 2016 09:52

Arcal, just a question, and I don't mean to hijack the thread.
why is it just you that screams so loudly from a group of pilots and mechanics that counts perhaps close to 100?
Most of the arguments you bring to the table are just frivolous.
The AW139 may be a tad more exlensive to operate than a bunch of old 76s, of course.

donut king 11th Jul 2016 18:38


Originally Posted by tottigol (Post 9435448)
Arcal, just a question, and I don't mean to hijack the thread.
why is it just you that screams so loudly from a group of pilots and mechanics that counts perhaps close to 100?
Most of the arguments you bring to the table are just frivolous.
The AW139 may be a tad more exlensive to operate than a bunch of old 76s, of course.

Arcal is not the only pilot! Just because the rest of the crews aren't blogging on pprune doesn't mean they don't agree with arcal. He seems to be a front line dude in the know. I was a front line guy many moons ago and agree with arcal. Tottigol, were you involved with Ontario HEMS?

tottigol 11th Jul 2016 22:56

No, I am well aware of the difficulties they have had with overweight aircraft though.
However, considering the distances involved and the avionics capability of the 139, I think it's still the best aircraft for the job, even though not used to its best capabilities.
the Ornge internal politics are their own.

John R81 2nd May 2018 11:14

[i]R v 7506406 Canada Inc (2017 ONCJ 750) Ornge air ambulance services were charged with 3 counts under the Labour Code following the air ambulance crash discussed above. All charges were dismissed
The charges were that Ornge
  1. failed to ensure employee safety by failing to provide pilots with a means to maintain visual reference while operating at night leading to the deaths of Donald Mark Filliter and Jacques Dupuy (2 separate charges); and
  2. failed to ensure the health and safety of its employees by failing to provide adequate supervision for daily flight activities at Moosonee by way of eliminating the position of base manager.
On (b), the Crown's position was that Ornge's decision to discontinue the base manager position removed a critical safety-net. The court was unconvinced and dismissed the charge. A centralised scheduling system was used in the industry and senior, experienced pilots and employees collectively filled any gaps.

On (a), Ornge did provide searchlights with which to see the ground, but these were not adequate to allow an acceptable level of safety for flight. Though Ornge complied with the regulations issued by Transport Canada, the Court held that there is an undefined area or space between the regulatory scheme and the [centralised load control] where the general obligation to conduct a safe operation may apply and impose additional obligations”.
This view was reflected in some of the comments earlier in discussions in this PPrune thread.

However, t
he Court considered that it is impossible to eliminate all risk in the helicopter medical transport industry, rather the goal is to reduce and maintain risk at an acceptable level. As it was not industry practice in Canada to equip all medical helicopters with night vision goggles, Ornge was not negligent in failing to provide night vision capability.

[email protected] 3rd May 2018 05:42

So the court have passed up the chance to make anything safer and just accepted the present operations as maintaining risk at an acceptable level.

Risk is always much more 'acceptable' to those who aren't actually exposed to it.

JimL 3rd May 2018 06:47

Crab,

The Courts are not responsible for ensuring, or improving, safety in Commercial Air Transport - that is why scope was limited to assessing compliance with the 'Labour Code'. Quite frankly, from the report by 'John R81', the Court appeared to have strayed beyond its area of competence. Once the Courts become involved in assigning blame in aircraft accidents, all legitimate moves towards the establishment of a 'just culture' will go out of the window and the management of safety will based only on compliance with regulations.

Responsibility for establishing the 'cause' of accidents rests with the AIB; the responsibility for the 'process' of safety management and continuous improvement rests with the CAA (Transport Canada); the responsibility for 'managing' safety and establishing a safe culture rests with the operator.

The process of assigning blame merely serves to make the lawyers richer.

Perhaps a legitimate point from your post is that, by making this ruling, the Courts have undermined an attempt by Transport Canada to improve operations with methods other than regulations (e.g. influencing culture).

Jim

GrayHorizonsHeli 3rd May 2018 10:43

Labour Canada, is another crown jewel of Canada that is an utter failure.
Its like throwing darts with a blindfold.

As far as a company who's goal is to only meet the minimum acceptable level, thats a company I would not work for.
Every company should strive to exceed the minimums.

[email protected] 3rd May 2018 12:28

Jim, I take your points but any attempt to improve safety seems destined to be mired in administrative process or pushed from pillar to post as no-one has the power to demand change.

If Transport Canada doesn't see the need to acknowledge the weaknesses of their regulations ie no requirement for NVG for this sort of operation, and there is no pressure on the operators to provide because it isn't 'industry standard' - unless litigation identifies blame, how will anything ever change?

Cultural change sounds pink and fluffy but is easily paid lipservice to and ignored by those with their fingers on the pursestrings - people dying in HEMS crashes on a regular basis in the US hasn't fostered a new culture - only regulation will do that.

Hoping everyone will play nice and improve safety for their own sakes is naive and not representative of the 'race to the bottom' that is often complained about on these pages about the helicopter industry.

I'm afraid that the concept of 'just culture' is flawed and only serves to give paper safety not real safety.

Arcal76 3rd May 2018 16:37

Yes, we will always have risk in aviation...if you fly an helicopter, there is tons of things who could happen.
The question is how you manage the risk in your specific operation?
Transport Canada like the FAA is an organisation who refuse to go against the operator because nobody has the guts to put his name against a valid problem, a known problem who could result in an accident. When the accident happen, now they come back with big ideas and non compliance in specific operations. It is simple, operators are more powerful than TC. We had a good example recently with the H1 helipad story in BC and Nova Scotia.

We talk about having NVG's a lot in the past, but the answer was always the same: "To expensive....will never happen....forget it...."
After having 4 guys dead, the company had to do something to prove their will to improve the safety of this operation, but hey, we just finished the NVG qualification for all our base, we are in May 2018....


All times are GMT. The time now is 10:21.


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