Dual Crew
 

I've flown as a chater pax with dual crew in AS355 in Italy and with single crew in various machines all over the world, which is fine but I really would have thought these hard working HEMS and SAR guys should have at least 2 crew.

Can't believe a single pilot, often working at night or in very difficult situations is acceptable, surely things need to change, it never seems a month goes by without a tradgerty.....

Surely this approach provides significant protection in the cruise but will be much less effective when descending with low airspeed?

Wasn't the single pilot /two pilot subject discussed at length after the Clutha accident. Seems to me in this case a better investment would be in the development of a simple electrical field detection/warning system.

First...
My deepest condolences to all related with hope for quick recovery for Sondre

I am tired of funeralls too,
but in case you put 2 pilots, doctor & paramedic, EMS set & some Oxy
with some fancy nav aids, your patient may have 100 kg or over that.
Wonder, how far you can reach with EC 135 :{ or similar size of rotorcraft?!

For me in this case its no difference between 2 pilots or 1 pilot with 1 trained TCM. They both have just 4 eyes together to spot a cable.

skadi

True.... A 135 it not suitable for a 4 crew ops. You will need a 145 or similar.

Imho, the most important thing you will gain with two pilots in front, is two pair of eyes which are focused on the helicopter operation here and now, not what lies ahead; which in this case is to go and help someone in distress, with all the things included.

Another possibility is that in concentrating on avoiding one set of 'seen' wires, or even just poles, the second set goes unnoticed.

I will second the opinion that having a second crewmember mentally distanced from the patient is a good thing. Not related to this incident, just general support.

Caution, hangar story:

I recall carefully recceing a winter, night LZ with a military crew of 4. We indentified 2 sets of wires and very careful avoided them with all eyes on a hair trigger.

In the morning we were all stunned at how close we had come to a third, very thin set that none of us had seen the night before.

Wires
 

I did see a thread on here last year that had a co pilot or winch man stood on the skids purely to observe for any wires or obstructions whilst coming into land.

This I agree is dangerous in itself but seemed to work for them?

Two pilots is not protection from wire strike and using a single point event such as this one as evidence is not justifiable.

There have been a significant number of two pilot wire strikes (and even two pilot CFIT). Just in the small backyard of Australia I can think of three two-pilot strikes straight away:
Chinook near Wivenhoe Dam, QLD, Huey near Pucka in Victoria, Black Hawk near Oakey, QLD.

I also agree wholeheartedly that two crew in the front is a minimum standard, but I don't believe that necessarily requires two pilots. The key is in ensuring the other front seater really is trained as a pilot assistant in every sense of the word - maps, avionics, CRM, IFR plates, systems understanding, checklists, performance, monitoring, etc. Not just a paramedic or crewman jumping in the front and being told how to run the mission radio and hold a map.

Norway, as far as I know, were the first to mandate two trained crew up the front, one of three sound recommendations from the 1996 fatal, and NLA have absolutely ensured that that person is fully capable up front. I understand EASA is moving to mandate a similar system??

The second recommendation from 1996 was that they mandated moving maps, and thirdly NVG for all night ops. Much of the rest of the world has yet to adopt any of these.

I believe, similarly to Gemini that a better wire detection/depiction method will be the next step in safety around this sort of wire strike on landing (if you have already adopted the three 1996 recommendations). Focusing on two pilot ops as a solution is a simple reaction, unsupported by evidence that is going to distract us from considering the complexity of the problem and creating a lasting solution that works. But I fear it will sound so convincing (as many straw man arguments do) and so simple, that it will be irristible to the regulators and politicians who don't like complex problems and evidence based solutions.

They want a fix, and want it now! Unfortunately, two pilots is not our answer for this sort of accident, IMHO.

We are thinking of you Sondre.

Second that. The TCM in this case had 20 years experience looking for wires every working day, so thinking a second pilot would make the big difference is being quite naive.

I agree guys, and I did say my comment was not related to this incident.

I still believe in what I said though. Both military and civil, the medical guys were very focused on that aspect of their job. It's reality. No lack of professionalism.

Also, when working as a pilot/engineer, the head inevitably gets divided and switching focus is difficult. Same concept.

A small reduction of risk perhaps. We all have our view

I'm sure a TCM/police observer with 20 years experience would be equally capable at spotting wires, and very comfortable with other cockpit duties, however in the UK many HEMS/AA units take their doctors & paramedics on secondments from local ambulance services which offer much shorter service periods, and don't allow people to reach this level of aviation awareness before being replaced. No disrespect to the people who are in this situation but the learning curve is steep, and they always have their medical considerations to prioritise. Two pilots offers a dedicated aviation aware team at the front, and an extra pair of eyes if carrying a crew of 4 instead of 3.

..And its not a strawman argument to say that this does not prove that its necessary with two dedicated pilots?

An aircraft of any kind can crash no matter how experienced the crew is, or how many they are, so you can easily claim that an S-92 operating to/from SVG everyday might just as well be piloted by one instead of two. Its no safer with two guys in that cockpit?

You know thats balloney..

The whole point with having two dedicated pilots in the EMS ops, is to ease the workload of PF. To claim that this is not necessary is quite an astonishing argument. Are you basically saying that their operations arent that dangerous?

And yes, a TCM do alot of help to the pilot, but it becomes very limited.

However unlikely it may be, what if an EMS unit pics up a badly injured person, and the pilot gets incapacitated in IMC. Will the TCM be capable of handling that situation too?

Thats correct. EASA rules: HEMS generally 2 pilots, but in specified area 1 pilot and 1 trained TCM.

skadi

Even if the second pair of eyes is adequately trained and has adequate experience and the issues of CRM between two totally differ backgrounds have been addressed, a member of the medical crew can never be guaranteed to be effective. The medical crew member will be aware of the incident, may well have been briefed about the pathology and will invariably be reviewing in his mind the protocol for the pathology, the specific risks, the possible mechanism of injury etc etc.

Behavioural psychologists have researched this scenario ad nauseam. Concentration on the flying task will always be degraded, and more worryingly the individual often has no insight into this. That is why we operate a Chinese wall so the pilots are unaware of the medical situation as far as possible.

Skadi,

Could you please throw more light on your quote:


Thats correct. EASA rules: HEMS generally 2 pilots, but in specified area 1 pilot and 1 trained TCM.
skadi

Current version of AIR OPS Regulation 965/2012 says that your quote is valid for night ops-correct me if I am wrong.
As far as I know, NLA has a very thorough training program for HEMS crewmembers, that goes far beyond minimum requirements of JAR OPS 3 HEMS (now Air Ops SPO HEMS). After seeing the presentation of their training program, several in audience half-jokingly commented that getting a CPL(H) is peanuts compared to this.
Regards,
hoistop

hoistop, you are right. Its for night HEMS.


skadi

Of course extra eyes are a huge help but I've found that if you can see the poles or towers you can usually determine the route of the otherwise invisible wires. Pole tops near highways or accident hot spots should at least have a high visibility finish of some sort. A couple of I/D balls on long wire spans between poles is not a bad idea either. These costs are insignificant compared to the investment in lives and of setting up and operating these magnificent HEMS programs.


I must add that the designers have done a fantastic job on the crashworthiness of EC135 fuel system.


Best wishes Sondre, we are all pulling for you.

Thoughts from an HEMS pilot
 

Wires in an LZ present a significant hazard to HEMS operations. It's an especially difficult risk to manage when the right of way and support towers/poles are not in the pilot field of view View of right of way and towers are the most reliable method of locating the conductors and static lines. I have found that parking vehicles under wires present a useful reference and reminder of the obstacle's presence. This information is part of the LZ brief we train agencies to provide.
The usual method of vertical descents and ascents minimizes exposure to wire hazard seen and unseen, but present a serious challenge when the vertical segment is extended, as it would be in a valley or when there are multiple levels of hazard to navigate. Sometimes it is possible to avoid wires by direct visual observation without other references. I find this extremely difficult with smaller gauge wires, as they present little surface and texture for depth perception, and the stereoscopic physiologic function is least effective when most needed, as one passes the wire altitude.
An extensive vertical is also especially challenging with limited surface features available, as I would expect in the snowy terrain of this accident.

Devil 49's experience tracks with mine.

Key to the use of Emergency Vehicles with flashing lights to mark power lines works only if you know that is what is being done for you and you know which vehicles are the markers.

That brings up the real key to all of this....effective communication between the ground units and the aircrew.

Usually, the Ground Crew have the best vantage point for observing Wire Hazards as their workload while checking for them is the lowest.....and they are physically the closest to them.

Most places I flew EMS, the use of Emergency Vehicle lights were controlled to facilitate marking the LZ (the only white lights showing) and Emergency RoofTop lights flashing only on the vehicles marking the LZ and Hazards, all other vehicles had white lights off, Emergency roof top lights off, and only Amber lights activated on the vehicle. That makes it very easy for the aircrew to pick out the LZ and any hazards that are being marked by ground vehicles.

The one real danger that remains.....is the unseen Wires and the aircrew must remain on guard during the approach and takeoff for wires that might have been missed by the Ground Units.

Most Ground units carried Bean Bag Lights or some other way of marking the LZ even if only some one with a Torch, Wand, or other lighting device.

The real key is training and coordination well ahead of actual emergency flights so everyone is working to a common standard and same procedures.