EMS helicopter crash, CA/NV state line

MikeD

MikeD

Administrator
Staff member
Another fatal EMS helicopter crash, the fifth or sixth one this year. Sucks. Comes a week after a non-fatal crash on the San Carlos Indian Reservation in AZ, a month and a half after a fatal crash in South Carolina, 2.5 months after a fatal crash in Lee County, Florida, and 5 months after a fatal State Police helo crash in New Mexico during a rescue.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/33930774/ns/us_news-life/
 
Mountain LifeFlight Crash

Can't wait for this year to be over. RIP to the crew, prayers for the families.





edit (thanks MikeD)
 
Re: Mountain LifeFlight Crash

Tld said:
Can't wait for this year to be over. RIP to the crew, prayers for the families.

edit (thanks MikeD)
Click to expand...

No prob partner, we were thinking the same thing.

I realize that EMS helo ops can be everything from routine to pretty darn demanding, but the accident rate is really getting up there. Being on both sides of the fence (helos with AFRES and BP with a fair amount of time as crew in the AS-350B2/B3 series, as well as Firefighter/EMT), I can see both sides of the equation, and unfortunately it's starting (IMHO) to go beyond simply being "the nature of the beast". On the FF side, I see many times when helos are requested not just for injuries being dealt with on scene, but seemingly out of convenience......sometimes when a ground transport might have been just as well. On the helo side, you've got a single pilot who can go from zero to being task saturated in an instant, especially in a night aided/unaided environment. Two-pilot ops are out of the question for the vast majority of EMS operations mainly due to the types of helos being operated, as well as cost. The most widely used EMS helo is the Eurocopter AS-350/355 series helo, which if you look at their configuration, has everyone stuffed into the pretty small helo already: The pilot has the right front seat, the left front seat is removed, the medic is behind the pilot and the left half of the cockpit/cabin is taken up with the patient, who's stretcher/board goes fore/aft along the left half of the interior. Same with the Bell 407 series. So having a second pilot isn't feasible in the smaller helos. Weight restrictions are a second reason there's no second pilot as well as cost of having a second pilot even if there is room (which doesn't happen until you start getting into the BK-117/BO-105/S-76/Bell 222 helos.....helos which used to be mainstays, but aren't as widespread in EMS as they once were). Most of the accidents are pilot error, and the soaring accident rate has gotten the attention of the NTSB, who has been holding hearings and is compiling another special investigative report on these operations.
 
If I recall correctly, there was a great article in B&CA or Pro Pilot a while back about medevac operations. The main focus of the story was how the industry has shifted from "in house" to "contracted/for profit". When the hospitals owned and operated the choppers, there was a lower probability of the crew launching into adverse conditions since they were a liability to the hospital. Now that it is private industry and everyone is trying to make a buck, they're launching into crap weather, which just so happens to spawn the highest number of auto accidents.
 
TFaudree_ERAU said:
If I recall correctly, there was a great article in B&CA or Pro Pilot a while back about medevac operations. The main focus of the story was how the industry has shifted from "in house" to "contracted/for profit". When the hospitals owned and operated the choppers, there was a lower probability of the crew launching into adverse conditions since they were a liability to the hospital. Now that it is private industry and everyone is trying to make a buck, they're launching into crap weather, which just so happens to spawn the highest number of auto accidents.
Click to expand...

It is indeed interesting. Funny you mention the change from "in house" to "private"; it's the same in the PHX area (which growing up there, I can speak to). Most of the helo EMS used to be owned by Samaritan Healthcare, the previous owners of AirEvac throughout the 1980s, and I believe early '90s. They had the helos, and some Cessna 441 Conquest birds for fixed-wing, which were manned by pilots from Sawyer Aviation, an FBO at KPHX. Air Evac services now operates the helos in PHX, staffed by pilots from PHI, and has the Conquests still available, though I don't know who staffs those now.

Interesting too, we get called every now and again for medevacs. However, each time we do, the civilian EMS operators complain that it's government competition with the private sector. In AZ, there's a "rotation" of sorts regards who gets called to an EMS call with a helo. Arizona DPS (State police) is the only government operation in that mix, and has been for a long time. Beyond that, all the civilian EMS helos have to be tasked first before a military helo or otherwise can be requested. That, or it has to be a rescue situation (civilian EMS helos don't do rescue, they only transport). So if a hoist or longline is required, then generally DPS or military would have to do that. Thats just AZ. Other states that are far more rural and have a military base nearby with helos can have MAST (Military Assistance to Safety and Traffic) birds available for civilian assistance.
 
So what's the fix Mike? I owe my life to some Medevac guys and I follow this sector carefully. My view is that it has always been dangerous, but it does seem to be getting moreso. What, in your opinion and with your experience, is the "fix"?
 
WacoFan said:
So what's the fix Mike? I owe my life to some Medevac guys and I follow this sector carefully. My view is that it has always been dangerous, but it does seem to be getting moreso. What, in your opinion and with your experience, is the "fix"?
Click to expand...

That's a tough one to answer. The risk is always there. And the answer has to come from both sides....the ground side as well as the air side. On the ground side, not making everything a helo medevac; as I've said, I've seen many instances of calling a helo out for something that might not have needed one. On the air side, again we're not finding new ways to crash helicopters, just doing it more often. In the Flagstaff, AZ midair last year, there was almost 15,000 hours experience between the two helo crews involved, yet they collided during day VMC right near the hospital. Getting extra crews won't solve the issue, with what I posted above. Am going to have to put some thought into this one...
 
We just had our AMRM (AeroMedical Resource Management) "week". While the fixed wing side is still relatively in line, the helo ops is just down right scary looking at the numbers. 92% of the accidents were human factors problems.

There is just too much pressure to get flights done and make money and the crews need to step up and start saying no (3 to go, one to say no).

IMO, the way to put a good lid on this is adopt the night vision, no VFR, two crew, multi engine turbine, model and do away with monitored lift off and response times. If it takes 15 minutes to get the aircraft off the pad, it takes 15 minutes.

We get called to do a lot of Helo turn downs that are nothing more than Hospital to Hospital patient transfers where the patient is stable enough to be driven by personnel vehicle.

Hopefully the HEMS rewrite(s) will help quell this increase in fatalities, but I don't believe the answer is more regulation, the answer(s) are already in the crew's laps.
 
400A said:
There is just too much pressure to get flights done and make money and the crews need to step up and start saying no (3 to go, one to say no).

IMO, the way to put a good lid on this is adopt the night vision, no VFR, two crew, multi engine turbine, model and do away with monitored lift off and response times. If it takes 15 minutes to get the aircraft off the pad, it takes 15 minutes.
Click to expand...

While I agree with much of the above, the reality is that all of it is too much to expect. Night vision has been adopted by many operators, yes. But no VFR may or may not happen, and isn't feasible in many cases (remote, low altitude/mountainous), two crew is a weight/cost/room on the helicopter issue, multi-engine is a weight/cost issue, and model is restricted to a few types of helos, again for cost. I agree though, that if it takes more than a few minutes to get off the pad safely, then so be it. It's the same as when I respond to a fire call on my ground job, or to a medical call in the flight job: If the couple of minutes it takes extra to get there safely means the life or death of the patient (versus the crash of the vehicle/helo), then there was nothing I could've done to save that person anyway.

We get called to do a lot of Helo turn downs that are nothing more than Hospital to Hospital patient transfers where the patient is stable enough to be driven by personnel vehicle.
Click to expand...

Helos are being used for more and more "routine" callouts, where the risk is still there, but mission doesn't justify it.

Hopefully the HEMS rewrite(s) will help quell this increase in fatalities, but I don't believe the answer is more regulation, the answer(s) are already in the crew's laps.
Click to expand...

Agree the answer is not in regulation, it's in how business is being done. As stated, the majority of these accidents are crew error, very few being equipment failure or mission (though mission has been contributory).
 
MikeD said:
That's a tough one to answer. The risk is always there. And the answer has to come from both sides....the ground side as well as the air side. On the ground side, not making everything a helo medevac; as I've said, I've seen many instances of calling a helo out for something that might not have needed one. On the air side, again we're not finding new ways to crash helicopters, just doing it more often. In the Flagstaff, AZ midair last year, there was almost 15,000 hours experience between the two helo crews involved, yet they collided during day VMC right near the hospital. Getting extra crews won't solve the issue, with what I posted above. Am going to have to put some thought into this one...
Click to expand...

Is it your hunch that the increased crashes are occuring at a rate that is consistent with the increased use (ground calling air when it may not be needed)? Or, are the curves between usage and crashes not moving up at the same pace - just your opinion - no way to really know without access to the numbers.
 
WacoFan said:
Is it your hunch that the increased crashes are occuring at a rate that is consistent with the increased use (ground calling air when it may not be needed)? Or, are the curves between usage and crashes not moving up at the same pace - just your opinion - no way to really know without access to the numbers.
Click to expand...

I dont have broad info in front of me; most of my contention here being more from personal experience. I would like to research that though, as it would be interesting to see.

Some EMS operators used to, as a safety measure, not have the flight crew be made aware of the "particulars" of a patient (child, specific type of injury, etc) so they wouldn't be self-pressured to push the mission when they would otherwise not do so (esp in the case of children). But that was only effective during the days of the BK-117s/BO-105s etc when they were the king of the EMS helo world....since those helos had rear loading and the patient compartment was separate from the cockpit. Nowdays, with the AS-350/355s/Bell 407s, the patient is right next to the pilot, where the copilot seat was formally located.
 
I don't know Mike. Being too much to expect is not acceptable given the current rate of accidents, IMO.

One thing I forget to "rant" about, is chopper shopping. www.weatherturndown.com is a great site and should be used much more than it is so programs can realize when things are being "shopped" out.
 
400A said:
I don't know Mike. Being too much to expect is not acceptable given the current rate of accidents, IMO.

One thing I forget to "rant" about, is chopper shopping. www.weatherturndown.com is a great site and should be used much more than it is so programs can realize when things are being "shopped" out.
Click to expand...

I fully agree with you. Its just that what we'd like to see done versus what can realistically be done, may not always be one and the same. I wish it could be. Thing is, to force these things to be done, now gets into the regulation and laws side of the equation. Someone still has to pay for the stuff. It's like airlines and their implementation of safety improvements: If it's cheaper (in the long term) to implement the fix and save you, they'll save you. If it's cheaper to kill you, they'll kill you.
 
First I'm not a pilot, I wish I were but chose a differient career path. I have been a paramedic for the last 20 years, with 6 as a flight medic on an MD900, AS 350 Twinstar along with B2's and B3's. The original post hit close to home as the ship that went down was from a neighboring program. I knew the medic pretty well so this incident took on somewhat of a personal nature. I resigned from my flight medic job 4 years ago because I was not convinced that the risks that both I and the crew were occasionaly taking were worth the risk to both ours and our patients lives (I had a few "close calls") First please understand that I did and still do hold the pilots of that agency in the highest regard. If they said the weather was OK and we had the gas to complete the mission, then I climbed in without a 2nd thought. All are high time with mountian experience, professional, confident and competent. The ships were (are) maintained very well. At the time I flew we did not incorperate NVG's although the program now does. There were many times when we flew off on very dark, very moonless night across desert terrain for a person that did not even need an ambulance, much less a helicopter. The basis of my bitch is that I've now been to 4 memorials for differient incidents. In every one of the post incident criteques and NTSB reports you never hear (and never will) what the patient's condition was. Did helicopter transport add value to the patients condition/situation and was the risk/benifit to the crew considered. We lost three professional's last weekend. I want to believe that we sacrificed them for a real good reason. I can tell you that 90+% of the programs in the US will blindly launch with a request, without doing a risk/value assessment outside of looking at the weather. My program, in addition to others, would leave out patient information to the pilot so that he or she would'nt emotionaly attached to the request, which I think is fantastic. I'm going to stop now because I feel a serious rant coming on. I would love to hear any comments or questions. The State of Maryland is completely overhauling their helicopter EMS response protocol to try to only put the ships in the air when there is a true clinical benifit to the patient, as opposed to making a dollar. If you fly for an EMS outfit my hat's off to you. Please be safe.
Thanks again for your time.
BattleBorn
 
RIP to the crew.

We have a few on our field and from talking and watching them my hats off to them.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top