AAIB (UK) H November 2022
 

HEMS 169 making a standard confined area departure, downdraught at decision point causes flying debris in a garden below injuring a bystander - Link

One does wonder why the pilot didn't elect to use the full length of the field (ie depart to the North-West)

https://cimg7.ibsrv.net/gimg/pprune....c0282e0515.png

Looks like there’s a tall hedge behind the landing point so a helipad departure was required. Having said that, perhaps the aircraft could have been hover taxied forwards, to the upwind end of the area, so that the whole departure was further away from the houses.

Complicated profiles with burdensome restrictions strike again?

Had am pd fashioned plain Jane towering takeoff been done depart over the copse of trees and track along the green between the Housing areas rather than backing up.....would make far more sense even if an insult to the Regulations.

What is the risk of an engine failure these days.....anyone have the statistics for similar helicopters to the 169?

So throw away the rules and ignore the profiles so that in the event of a problem you lose your licence for not complying and then get sued by anyone for injury or loss - great idea....:ugh:

Crab
The ANO does state that one can throw away the rules if is for saying life This is tongue in cheek

Unfortunately the pilot is seldom in a qualified position to make that decision in a casevac situation (deemed public Transport in UK) and even where it might seem obvious it might not be a defence in law. During my time as a police pilot an EC135 was used to rescue someone drowning in the sea. The pilot hovered just clear of the sea while the observer stood on the aircraft skid and pulled the person out of the water. It should have been obvious that a life was saved but the CAA subsequently published a warning stating that the next pilot to try this sort of thing would be prosecuted for endangering the aircraft! Bizarre, but true.

Crab,

I empathise with you completely but there is far more risk of killing someone or injuring at the very least compared to an engine failure. We have recent stats to confirm that.
If someone gave you the option of doing a PC1 departure knocking over an old lady with your downwash or going PC2 with a different style and having no problems, what would you choose? I am not being facetious, but these downwash incidents are becoming very common.

Abiding by the rules and still injuring someone anyway is OK then? Bet the bloke with a brolly shaft stuck in his face might have a different view.

I thought it was as according to SASLESS - "ASS - which implies yours and eveyone elses you have control over regarding outcomes. TIN - the machinery. TICKET - your licence.

I see slavish isn't mentioned.

people get injured by downwash - it happens, it's not great but it happens.

If the pilot had done something different, compromised his aircraft safety and spanked in after an engine failure you'd be calling him unprofessional.

In this case he put his ASS and that of his crew/pax first and made a safe (for the aircraft) departure - unfortunately the conditions of the day plopped his downwash onto someone (who he wouldn't have been able to see was there anyway).

It all sounds like a lot of fuss about very little and the low likelihood of the downwash from a helicopter at 200' affecting things in the garden would mean the majority of pilots wouldn't even have considered it a danger.

If people want air ambulances to get close to incidents then sometimes this sort of thing will happen.

I wonder if the injured party over-egged his assessment of the 'tornado' for compensation.

I was once accused of hitting a tv aerial fastened to the chimney of a house. From 1200 feet agl in a twin Squirrel that was some trick.

I was also once accused of blowing a plastic windmill out of a garden I hadn’t flown over. I later learned it had been nicked the night before by drunks on their way home from the nearby pub.

But unfortunately accidents do happen and I’m not disputing the claim made in this case.

Going off topic slightly…. It’s been 2 years since the the accident of G-CKYT on the Black Isle. Will the AAIB be providing a 24 month update?

Shy

My business partner is a QC, just asked him on your case, his view CAA would be laughed out of court, but it wouldnt get there as the CPS wouldn't even consider it

The letter was treated with the respect it deserved but the threat to individual pilots was there. It was during that same time frame that our unit boss (police inspector) asked me to draft a reply to a letter from the CAA’s enforcement branch about a complaint that we were breaking the 500 foot rule during takeoff and landing at our base!

Shy

Know what you mean I had a CAA Ops inspector recently phone me up and said i would have my examiners privilege removed if i continued to defend one of my PPL's who had allegedly infringed airspace ( he hadnt )

KC I think…..

PC2 is definitely the way to go in these urban impromptu landing sites. It's not unsafe to do a PC2 departure - it's just a different way of flying where risk is managed. Agree with you completely.

For example in this case, I would expect the aircraft could have comfortably ascended way steeper than the text book Cat A departure until above the obstacles, holding a safe vertical reject as an option (PC2 in the HEMS environment does need specific training). You would comfortably have the capability to clear all obstacles AEO up to DPATO as required by PC2 before achieving PC1 OEI obstacle clearance once transitioning forward. The downwash is contained (whilst significant) to the area you just left (and therefore had some control over).

The fallacy of PC1 being the only "safe" way to operate is wrong. It is very safe in certain circumstances but when uncontrolled third parties are present, then you have to fly smarter and have bosses who support and backup crews operating in this way.

All that being said, I think the crew were unlucky in this case as their downwash would have been just on the cusp of being completely disappated at their height - funneling bites.

They had no casualty on board, so required to fly PC1 I think. Interesting to see the medical staff referred to as ‘crew’ - is that new, or wrong?

not the case in the regulations. I would stake a considerable sum that there is no such rule. The only mandatory requirement for PC1 in HEMS is operating to a regularly used site (my words) in a congested (eg town) and hostile area (no safe places to land (eg dense city)). For example an elevated pad such as St George’s in London. Might be a company requirement but I highly doubt it.

I think you’re right, now that I look.