HAA fatal 4-2-23 Alabama EC-130
 

https://www.al.com/news/2023/04/medical-helicopter-crashes-in-shelby-county.html

https://cimg1.ibsrv.net/gimg/pprune....818eb0954.jpeg

From another site.....

https://cimg1.ibsrv.net/gimg/pprune....7813656fd8.jpg

Not sure how accurate those ADS-B datapoints are but nonetheless looks like an interesting flight path towards the end there. Especially that acceleration in the last few seconds. The initial setup for the recon to the off airport landing site looks normal. Anyone know what the wx was at the time? Given the time of the day there was plenty of daylight left.

At a glance it looks like high recon, low recon and an approach.

A closer look at the ADS-B exchange data does in fact look more like a regular high and low recon. One of the pictures of the aircraft on the ground does show power lines crossing the road in the background.

On Google Street View there is a small powerline along the street.
https://cimg9.ibsrv.net/gimg/pprune....055af82330.jpg
https://cimg0.ibsrv.net/gimg/pprune....aed7988e8d.jpg

skadi

If you go to street view of that address at google maps and look in the other direction than in the posted photo you will see a power line crossing he Road that is quite low to the ground (normal minimum height for such lines must be 13' 6" by standard requirements) that appears to be the service line to that address.

The main line appears to be on the uphill wooded edge parallel to the roadway with the one line crossing perpendicular to the main line.

With all of the open pasture land adjacent to the roadway and the trees on both sides of the road.....why would a landing LZ have been set up on the road and not in the adjacent field?

I have made many such landings and even. had the Ground Units set one up on the road I would have requested they send one ground vehicle down the driveway into the open area....do a required recon (part of which is looking for the presence of wires and other obstructions) and I would have have them park a vehicle on the driveway opposite the direction from which the Patient would be arriving.

Until we know more about all this then we are merely pontificating upon the cause.

What is interesting is the fact that there was a fire of some significance that very could have a role in the survivability of the crash.

Did this aircraft have crashworthy fuel cell(s)? What caused the fire and how was it fueled....Jet fuel, O2 or some other flammable material?

To which I add- have a vehicle parked under any wires crossing the road near proposed landing.

The EC130T2 are all fitted with CRFS from the factory. The tanks has self sealing fuelwents and fuellines if ripped, so I recon the fire was not fueled from the tank.

Another photo of the scene.....not sure of the distance from the crash scene so the perspective might be distorting the view as there is what might be a cross line showing.



It appears the driveway is to the left side of the photo with the main line on the rights side.


https://cimg3.ibsrv.net/gimg/pprune....7646f57c1e.jpg

Very good practice, I’ll steal that idea.

Devil 49's post describes what is pretty much a standard practice but as in everything Wires will kill you in an instant and even the very best ground crew can make a mistake in the dark while under stress to get the aircraft down on. the ground.

I used all of the lights on the aircraft including the Night Sun....angled it down like a landing light and widened the beam to be more of a flood light.....and tried to fly down the light in a slow steep approach.

On takeoff I pointed the Night Sun upwards and flew up the light beam again looking for wires.

As dependable as turbine engine are today my primary concern at night landing at Scenes was wires and not an engine failure.

All my EMS flying was done in Twins but before NVG's so White Light...bright white light was welcome.

Also....I required the Med Crew to devote their full attention to looking for obstructions and wires during landing in order to have three sets of eyes looking outside.

It was not unusual to get out and do a ground recon when possible.

If that wire crossing the road is the one shown on google maps as being at the junction of Bear Creek Rd and Mountain Oak Drive, then something has happened to it - the google picture shows 3 wires, at normal height and with no significant bow in them.

The wire in the media picture looks like it is hanging down.

If they were approaching down the length of Bear Creek Rd they may have missed that wire crossing as it is partly hidden in the trees.

What would you have done.....land on the road or out in the open field next to the road?

My EMS experience would be the open field using the drive way as the landing spot and have the ground EMS unit transport the patient to that spot.

It does appear landing on the road at the junction with the driveway would work if it was the intended landing site.

I have seen fences cut to facilitate that kind of access to a pasture or hay field when necessary.

I have also landed on road ways that had clear flat unobstructed access and afforded a satisfactory landing area.

The investigation will be able to determine the intended landing site and then be able to determine if the aircraft struck wires or not.

Since it looks like they chose the road, there must have been a reason for it and in something small like a 130, landing at the junction of the road and driveway should have been OK.

​​​​​​​In something bigger I would definitely have gone into the field but perhaps there were livestock there - I'm sure we'll find out in due course.

Even with NVIS these days my mantra regarding supplemental aircraft light is find a reason to turn it OFF, rather than ON. Get plenty of white light out there to illuminate wires, improve general vision and assist if you have an NVIS failure. I turn it off rarely, usually only due to particles such as moisture, smoke or dust in the air.

Easy from the armchair, but looking at the pictures I would have approached steep and slow to the clear area between the dam and the road and then hover taxied as required for landing on the driveway, even between the dams. There doesn't appear to be too much slope from the imagery. It's great access for a road ambulance to come to you.

If I have any doubts, I'll even pull up in about a 200' hover and have a really good scan before proceeding in steep and slow. If power is an issue I can then fly away. As SASless says, engine failure should not be the prime concern here, wires/obstacles/dust and power margin should be.

Having said all that, who knows what caused the accident, and RIP to those two men.

Yup, 20 years ago I was teaching people to use a mixture of white light and NVIS - there had previously been the mantra that the two should be mutually exclusive but the improvements in goggle technology had not been fully appreciated.

Judicious use of the steerable landing light and often a white spotlight from the cabin helped spot those sneaky little wires that are often hidden in trees.

Lights not a factor in this case though, they had plenty of daylight left.

From the updated news report it seems one crew member survived so maybe answers will be forthcoming from her.

I note the pilot's age was 63, presumably single pilot commercial ops over the age of 60 is allowed in the USA?

https://www.al.com/news/2023/04/medi...by-county.html

I think age limits only apply to Part 121 operations (basically airlines). This would be Part 135 I think.

Indeed...Helicopter EMS Operations fall under US FAA Part 135 Air Taxi Regulations and OpSpecs issued as issued under the Part.

Airman Licensing is covered by US FAA Part 61.

Airmane Medical standards are covered by US FAA Part 61.

Yes as noted above. However, there have been some recent changes where Part 135 operators can implement a max 70 age limit if they so choose provided they meet certain criteria. Regardless, helicopter EMS ops fall under additional Part 135 requirements as well.

Which regulation is this? I cannot find it.

Not a regulation but law. H. R. 2617 passed this year. Page 799, Section 107 gets you the text.
Its actually a second attempt with a few articles out there that give the history. Here's one: https://www.ainonline.com/aviation-n...ge-91k-135-ops

EDIT: got my skis crossed. When looking for other references was informed the final bill specified "turbojet" ops vs simply "operations" from the original bill several years ago. Doubtful this bill will have any effect on your ops or other "turboshaft" operations. My bad.

All good, I have to say I kind of agree with the limit for certain operations. I know a few 70 = year old helicopter pilots who should prolly hang up their helmet but refuse.

Looks like a bit more than a "regular" high/low recon. 20 minutes time elapsed from the first time they crossed Hwy 43 until the last data point. Even if you take out that first large sweeping LH turn, there is still 15 minutes of circling up and down the road.

They could have had trouble locating the casualty and perhaps waiting for the road to be closed.

That's my point. Wouldn't be a "regular" high/low recon then.

Still seems like a normal event though, I've lost count of the times the casualty wasn't where we were told or there was more than one person on the ground matching the description.

The fact they went round a few times doesn't give cause for concern, maybe they were just being extra cautious due to the LS.

If they had any technical problems, it seems unlikely they would continue to try and land.

Stand-off protocol?
 

Some programs have an airborne standoff protocol in which they do not want the helicopter circling overhead as a “rush or distraction “ for the ground resources. Distance is determined by the local/situation but usually comms with the ground has been established.

Not saying that is the case in this incident, don’t know their SOP.

Prelim released. Interesting chain of events...

EC130 Alabama EMS Prelim

Bizarre chain of events - hopefully the Vision 1000 will show what actually caused the accident.