Change coming for EMS Helicopter Operators

[RotorAndWing]

OpSpec A021

 

[Velocity173]

Can't say EMS anymore. FAA wants HAA. They don't like the use of "emergency" because it might force the PIC to make decisions they normally wouldn't make.

All this was suppose to take effect a year ago but some companies complained and got it pushed a year later. Hence the new 135.600 series that started this year.

Not a big change for my company. Besides the FDR and OCC requirement, we comply with everything already. What I find odd is out of all the requirements, NVGs aren't one of them. Perhaps the most important safety enhancement to HEMS and NVGs not required.

 

[KSCessnaDriver]

If they want to clean up the operations, why don't they just make every HAA be IFR equipped.

 

[Velocity173]

If they want to clean up the operations, why don't they just make every HAA be IFR equipped.

Certification for SPIFR generally requires a twin engine aircraft such as an EC-135 or EC-145. These aircraft are more expensive than their smaller VFR counterparts. I suppose in a business with tight profit margins, equipping a fleet like that would put most HEMS operators out of business. Just these new changes that R&W posted above had some operators up in arms and prompted the one year delay of implementation. No way they could further spend money on new IFR twins.

In a perfect world, all HEMS aircraft would be dual pilot, twin engine IFR aircraft like an S-76 or EC-155. In a perfect world...

 

[James331]

HEMS already had some rule changes.

Not all ops are IFR, nor would it make sense, especially up north where IFR=FIKI.

 

[jaybee]

What I find odd is out of all the requirements, NVGs aren't one of them. Perhaps the most important safety enhancement to HEMS and NVGs not required.

My recently retired friend with 46 years of fling-winging spent his entire EMS career on the night shift and un-aided. He would vehemently disagree with you. Then again he flew his Huey into a hornet's nest to get his brothers in arms out alive. What's one got to do with the other ? I don't know either, just flapping gums.

 

[Velocity173]

My recently retired friend with 46 years of fling-winging spent his entire EMS career on the night shift and un-aided. He would vehemently disagree with you. Then again he flew his Huey into a hornet's nest to get his brothers in arms out alive. What's one got to do with the other ? I don't know either, just flapping gums.

Well it's good that he's survived all that but I don't know of anyone in the HEMS industry or anyone flying military who believe unaided is safer than aided. At least anyone that has experience flying NVGs. Common sense would suggest that when you can see your surroundings such as mountains, clouds, unlit towers, etc., you have a better chance of not flying into those things.

I have a friend who spent almost his entire first year flying HEMS in a BK-117 unaided. He'd be the first to tell you aided is far safer than unaided. A week prior to his operation going aided, they had another BK crash killing everyone on board. i think that accident was the impetus in his program going NVGs.

None of the FAA's changes this year provide any substantial safety benefit. OCC and the new risk analysis? Hilarious. As if I need a number or a color to tell me I'm low risk. We joke that even if you worst case the thing, it's still "low risk." Low risk is flying in an airliner with two pilots and redundancy out the a$$ from one 10,000 ft long runway to another 10,000 ft long runway. Low risk isn't getting waken up at 0300, doing a quick weather check, flying an unplanned route, to a non TERPd no VASI mountainous road intersection with gusty winds, MVFR, single pilot & single engine, operating at the limits of what the aircraft can do. There's definitely some risk involved there.

FAA is trying to solve our accident problem with technology but they overlooked the one critical piece. Perhaps since most operators are already full up NVGs it wasn't worth requiring, I don't know. Of course you could say that about some of the other requirements as well though. I don't know of anyone hiring pilots who aren't IFR certified and aircraft that aren't equipped with a RA and HTAWS.

I think this is a start in the right direction but I don't think we'll see any drastic change in the accident record of HEMS. It'll be a couple years before we can draw any real conclusions to these changes and safety records. Unfortunately we're already off to a bad start this year.

 

[dottat]

Certification for SPIFR generally requires a twin engine aircraft such as an EC-135 or EC-145. These aircraft are more expensive than their smaller VFR counterparts. I suppose in a business with tight profit margins, equipping a fleet like that would put most HEMS operators out of business. Just these new changes that R&W posted above had some operators up in arms and prompted the one year delay of implementation. No way they could further spend money on new IFR twins.

In a perfect world, all HEMS aircraft would be dual pilot, twin engine IFR aircraft like an S-76 or EC-155. In a perfect world...

And the sad story of that is my local operator removes the left stick and has a flight nurse sit there.

All the money for those birds and only one rider is capable of piloting.

 

[Velocity173]

And the sad story of that is my local operator removes the left stick and has a flight nurse sit there.

All the money for those birds and only one rider is capable of piloting.

You could have two up front but you wouldn't be able to lift much with a crew and patient in the back. I went in one of ours a few months back. Nice ride but a bit slow. Pilot hardly touched the controls.

 

[KSCessnaDriver]

Certification for SPIFR generally requires a twin engine aircraft such as an EC-135 or EC-145. These aircraft are more expensive than their smaller VFR counterparts. I suppose in a business with tight profit margins, equipping a fleet like that would put most HEMS operators out of business. Just these new changes that R&W posted above had some operators up in arms and prompted the one year delay of implementation. No way they could further spend money on new IFR twins.

In a perfect world, all HEMS aircraft would be dual pilot, twin engine IFR aircraft like an S-76 or EC-155. In a perfect world...

So, again, the bottom line matters more than passenger/patient safety. Airlines don't fly single engine airplanes, why? Because they were forced to by regulation. Why shouldn't HEMS operators be the same. But hey, none of this is surprising. Perhaps one day we will get away from the hard-on for using helicopters so damn much.

 

[RotorAndWing]

So, again, the bottom line matters more than passenger/patient safety. Airlines don't fly single engine airplanes, why? Because they were forced to by regulation. Why shouldn't HEMS operators be the same. But hey, none of this is surprising. Perhaps one day we will get away from the hard-on for using helicopters so damn much.

Nice thought, until one day your in a pile up on the interstate with internal injuries and the hospital ER is an hour away in traffic. Then there is that helicopter just landing next to the accident and will have you in the ER in 15 minutes. Something tells me that your attitude may change about them at that point.

And if you were the victim, are you really gonna refuse that ride if it's a B-407 single engine and not an EC-145? "No thanks, it's a single engine helo, hopefully the ambulance will get me there before I flat line"....

 

[Velocity173]

So, again, the bottom line matters more than passenger/patient safety. Airlines don't fly single engine airplanes, why? Because they were forced to by regulation. Why shouldn't HEMS operators be the same. But hey, none of this is surprising. Perhaps one day we will get away from the hard-on for using helicopters so damn much.

Yeah but airlines would like to fly single pilot though. It won't happen because you all don't have one paying passenger behind you, you have a few hundred. No way the FAA will allow single pilot with that many lives at risk. The same comparison could be made for other single pilot charter operations. There's no doubt a tour operator flying Astars in Hawaii or Las Vegas would have a safer operation with a twin engine, dual pilot aircraft. Same as flying singles over the Gulf of Mexico. Just not enough money to equip the whole fleet that way.

As far as getting away from using helos, I can't see that happening anytime soon. While growth is just now slowing, we're still opening up new bases all the time. It's been a proven service that not only saves lives because of speed, a lot of people don't realize they're getting far better care in the back of a HEMS over a ground ambulance. You might have a EMT or Paramedic with a few years experience in the truck. In the back of my aircraft I have a Flight Nurse and Flight Paramedic with anywhere from 10-20 yrs experience in trauma care. They have equipment and procedures that you can't get on the ground ambulance either.

I think the industry has made significant improvements in just the last 5-10 years. Our company is full up NVGs, most aircraft have G500/G1000s, HTAWS, RADALT, XM weather, TCAD, SVT, and recently auto pilots. My VFR aircraft has more avionics and instrumentation than most light GA IFR airplanes. We have new, well maintained aircraft with all the bells and whistles available. just have to try and entice the right type of applicants to chose HEMS over higher paying helo jobs.

Fact is, while it's a higher risk than some flying jobs, I don't consider it an unnecessary risk considering the positive benefits. If I actually believed my life was in danger I'd seek employment elsewhere. Plenty of other helo jobs around.

 

[KSCessnaDriver]

I think the industry has made significant improvements in just the last 5-10 years. Our company is full up NVGs, most aircraft have G500/G1000s, HTAWS, RADALT, XM weather, TCAD, SVT, and recently auto pilots. My VFR aircraft has more avionics and instrumentation than most light GA airplanes. We have new, well maintained aircraft with all the bells and whistles available. just have to try and entice the right type of applicants to chose HEMS over higher paying helo jobs.

Fact is, while it's a higher risk than some flying jobs, I don't consider it an unnecessary risk considering the positive benefits. If I actually believed my life was in danger I'd seek employment elsewhere. Plenty of other helo jobs around.

So if the "industry" has made significant improvements, why are they still crashing helicopters at a rate that will keep production lines open indefinitely. Maybe the problem isn't the helicopters, its the way operational control (or lack thereof) is handled in these type operations. Maybe this new opspec will help

 

[Velocity173]

So if the "industry" has made significant improvements, why are they still crashing helicopters at a rate that will keep production lines open indefinitely. Maybe the problem isn't the helicopters, its the way operational control (or lack thereof) is handled in these type operations. Maybe this new opspec will help

Our accident rate is exaggerated because of what we do. There was an excellent article in Flying Mag on HEMS about a year ago. I'll try and link it later. Basically the guy said that anytime a HEMS aircraft crashes, it gets attention because of the life saving nature of the mission. Yes, our accident rate ain't the best but the problem is, when we crash it makes news, especially if a patient such as an infant is on board. Second, our accident rate is actually comparable to other single pilot 135 charter ops and it's better than Part 91 helo training ops. So, while we need improvement, it's not as bad as some in the media make it out to be.

I agree, more operations control helps and we're constantly updating procedures to enhance safety. Our training standards, WX mins, CRM, risk assessment and flight acceptance policy, etc., all get scrutinized on a regular basis. The company I work for far exceeds the FAA's annual 135 eval requirements and has us doing quarterly training in the aircraft on top of our annual eval. We just opened our own multimillion dollar B407 & EC-135 simulator. The operations control and training is there.

I hear where you're coming from though and there are a lot of other leaders in this industry that are pushing hard for what you're suggesting. A guy by the name of Randy Mains has written on the subject in depth. He's a former HEMS pilot and a CRM instructor. He's said many times that an all twin engine, IFR, dual pilot fleet would have an 80 % reduction in accident rates. I don't know where he gets his numbers but I'd agree it would reduce our accident rate. By how much is anyone's guess. Perhaps in another 10 yrs we will be set up like that across the board. Until then I think the best we can hope for is to pack our VFR ships with as much tech as possible and hopefully have the right kind of experience behind the cyclic.