I've been hearing there are issues with the engines (similar to the original HH65's) and some of the EagleMed aircraft have that STC.
Very interesting. Would like to know more about this then..
I've been hearing there are issues with the engines (similar to the original HH65's) and some of the EagleMed aircraft have that STC.
BobDDuck said:I understand your sentiment, but that kind of reads to me like “ at least they died doing what they loved. ”
Dugie8 said:To your first paragraph
That is completely false. The nature of the "mission" does not negate any applicable regulation or necessitate acceptance of increased risk.
Or grams..
So my point, flying EMS isn't anymore dangerous or incurs anymore acceptance of risk than chartering a flight or taking a helicopter tour.
The folks who look at this job as some kind of "life saving" or "mission" centered practice are the ones causing most of the problems. Running a close second are the ones who keep track and post the number of flights a base or crew does in a given period.
To be fair, the fixed wing side has roughly the same accident rate as any pax air taxi. And we follow all of the 135 rules. Not a single exception.
We turn flights down all the time I would have blasted off in a second as a freight pilot. If there's a good chance we can't make the airport of intended landing(not go missed) it's not worth the fuel. We'll wait until wx gets better or when I flew down south, they could just drive.
Same here. The risk avoidance for us is almost mind boggling.
Well yes, kilos are grams. Just move the decimal.
Disagree with you some on this part. A helicopter tour flight and an EMS helicopter flight, can and often are very different. Thats where the risk difference is, simply the nature of the job itself. Helo tours aren't going into tight, unprepped LZs at night and the like. So there is a difference in basic risk. Now how that risk can and is mitigated, Ill agree with you, can and should be similar.
To a point, they rely on the police, fire, and ems crews to do an initial LZ evaluation.
Re: Risk Avoidance, etc. If they put anything else on the rotor "risk assesment", those things are going to turn in to paperweights. I'd say about half the time the rotor guys have a "medium" risk at night in great VFR. On the other hand, I totalled up what it would take to put me in "high", and the airplane would basically have to be on fire in a thunderstorm.
Re: Risk Avoidance, etc. If they put anything else on the rotor "risk assesment", those things are going to turn in to paperweights. I'd say about half the time the rotor guys have a "medium" risk at night in great VFR. On the other hand, I totalled up what it would take to put me in "high", and the airplane would basically have to be on fire in a thunderstorm.
Broadly speaking, I'd say they want three things. First and most importantly, they want some actual IMC training. As you said earlier, if you do it day in and out, popping in to the clouds is an absolute non-event (one hopes!), but most of these guys, for all of their vast experience, haven't flown actual in years (if ever). Second, they want a second engine. I believe you've given a closely reasoned explication of why you think that's unncecessary, and obviously you have a lot of knowledge I don't on the subject, but it seems undeniable that a number of autorotative accidents wouldn't have occurred (or at the very least would have been a lot more survivable) with a second engine. Third, they want an autopilot.
Now, let's throw out the second engine, since the aerodynamics of it are above my paygrade/experience. How much would it cost to get these guys in to an IFR certified aircraft every six (or even 12) months, even if just for a few hours? And how expensive is a basic three axis autopilot, really? I mean, consider what a transport costs...it couldn't be more than the tiniest FRACTION to put a basic A/P in the aircraft, right? Versus how many "consultants" are being paid six figures to come up with more damned paperwork to do to make sure these highly skilled pros know how to make the most basic decisions?
Essentially, it seems to me that pilots don't need more and better oversight, they need more and better capabilities. I stand by for correction!