Air Evac Helo jobs

[MikeD]

Any word from any Air Methods people about this recent deal with Bell to pick up 200 BH407's?

Ive head from local guys that they may be looking to get out of the multi-engine 135/145's and do more VFR runs in single engine.

What is the need for any IFR helicopter stuff for EMS, as it comes to any kind of normal operations? Sure, for inadvertent IMC, but no planned IFR flight is going to be done or needs to be. And multi-engine only adds cost to an operation where engine failure is a wide exception, rather than any kind of norm where an additional engine is needed/necessary. HEMS should be VFR, in my opinion, and single engine works fine for cost (from a company perspective), although you lose carrying capacity.

Operationally, I like twin engine such as a BK-117 or BO-105 just for the ease of use with the clamshells, the working room inside, and the power. But they're not exceptionally cost effective.

 

[deadstick]

The BK (MBB) and the Blow-chOw are all getting long in the tooth. There's a BM around here as a backup, but I beleive it's VFR only. I think I heard it's more profitable to let it sit as a backup than to actually fly it.

 

[Eddiebauer86]

I agree with your assesment of the IFR programs. I dont see any situation where a pilot is going to take off in IFR conditions and land at a scene without any weather forecast at the scene. I would say, based on what ive seen, they only really fly IFR when doing some kind of facility transfer or something like that. But, at that case, you load the patient into an Ambo and drop them at the nearest runway, where they are picked up by a King Air or PC-12 and flown actual IFR to where they need to be.

Ive heard, (although I have no experience) the 135's dont have particularly great single engine performance anyway, so its not like your going to continue on with a flight on single engine. The 407 has great payload and performance for a single engine, hence probably why they decided to go with it.

 

[I_Money]

I suspect the 407s are the beginning of a single type (for their community based program) for VFR work, I would expect to see more PC-12s. From what I hear in remote places, their times are similar to helicopters and they are flying scene calls with EMS meeting at airports. I hope to see a paper on this soon, from what I hear the numbers are very impressive.

 

[deadstick]

I think a big plus would be for Metro, Spectrum, and Lifeport to standardize their attachments. The Spectrum f/w and r/w set-ups are not interchangeable. I had a helo land next to us and we had to lift a patient from one litter to another because they weren't the same.

 

[Blackhawk]

What is the need for any IFR helicopter stuff for EMS, as it comes to any kind of normal operations? Sure, for inadvertent IMC, but no planned IFR flight is going to be done or needs to be. And multi-engine only adds cost to an operation where engine failure is a wide exception, rather than any kind of norm where an additional engine is needed/necessary. HEMS should be VFR, in my opinion, and single engine works fine for cost (from a company perspective), although you lose carrying capacity.

Operationally, I like twin engine such as a BK-117 or BO-105 just for the ease of use with the clamshells, the working room inside, and the power. But they're not exceptionally cost effective.

I could see VFR-IFR or visa versa situations. Launch IFR knowing you can pick up VFR at a certain point to the scene, or VFR and pick up IFR to a recovery. I can think of several fatal accidents which might have been prevented if the crew was IFR capable for a recovery.
I have not kept up with it but there was talk for a while of putting in helicopter GPS approaches to some pads.