Medical Helicopter crash In Colorado

badtransam97 said:
Makes me more than ready to take that paycut and head on to the regionals..I'm tired of reading about these things happening and tired of not knowing what to do about it, if there even is anything.
I like the flying, don't get me wrong, but the stress of the job seems much greater than what it would be flying planes. Like some of the others have said, the landing areas are constantly changing, most are VFR programs, which is stupid, and most use equipment barely able to take the crew and patient.
I fly b3's as well, and granted, I am at 600-800 above sea level here, I have still had to pull the guys out of it to get out of places. Beats a 206, but considering my company used to fly Bell 222's, seems to me we've all went a few steps backwards to keep up with the guys flying the 206's for half the cost..
Click to expand...

As a start, I've long been for the FAA coming out with a list of approved helicopter types for EMS. In my opinion, EC-135 and up, AW119 and up, and Bell 407 and up. Single or twin engine makes no difference to me.
 
Didn't AMC just put in a big order for 407s? @MikeD ithink the Bell 205 should be on the list. ;) They trained in those at HAATS for years.

How do the EC135 high and hot numbers comapre to the 350 with 2.5 hrs of fuel? The thing is a good aircraft for the mountains isn't necessarily a good one for the flat lands or for IFR. The 135/45 might be good for high DA, but if it's low IFR you can't carry enough fuel if the alternate is too far away.

Without a pile of cash, there is no "one size fits all."
 
NickH said:
Except it won't. The 135 EMS industry has been struggling to hire over the last couple of years, and it's getting worse. The better companies have been increasing pay, the less reputable have been cutting corners, pushing pilots, and hiring barely certified medical staff. The good part is that a pilot with a few thousand hours can choose their EMS job right now. The bad is that you NEED to be choosing carefully. It is a certainty that we will see more accidents this year, and many of them will be avoidable.
Click to expand...
Assuming those hours are free of bent metal and violations, I would certainly hope that a pilot with a few thousand hours could choose his job.
 
deadstick said:
Didn't AMC just put in a big order for 407s? @MikeD ithink the Bell 205 should be on the list. ;) They trained in those at HAATS for years.

How do the EC135 high and hot numbers comapre to the 350 with 2.5 hrs of fuel? The thing is a good aircraft for the mountains isn't necessarily a good one for the flat lands or for IFR. The 135/45 might be good for high DA, but if it's low IFR you can't carry enough fuel if the alternate is too far away.

Without a pile of cash, there is no "one size fits all."
Click to expand...

I always thought the BK-117 and BO-105 to be two of the best EMS birds.
 
The EC-135 is a joke above 3000msl, plenty of places ditch theirs for an Astar or 407 so they can actually lift something when it gets warm out. The helicopter in this accident was a very light AS350-B3e, which has about the best power to weight ratio you'll find in the class. The pilot was a very experienced senior pilot who was also employed by the union to show up and give info at basic indoc classes and assist with grievances on the pilots behalf.

If money was no object the EC-145 or Bell 429 would be everywhere, but most places simply can't support the expense of those aircraft and keep running. I also think in some instances a more capable aircraft might lead to overconfidence and wouldn't help the safety record any.

Moreover - and I know I won't make friends saying it - safety on rotor is pathetic compared to fixed-wing aircraft, and no other company is any better. Air Methods became a giant because their safety record gave them a financial advantage via cheaper insurance than any other EMS company, and they slowly acquired most of their competition.

AMC (just like Rocky Mountain, CJ Systems, Omniflight, ARCH, LifeNet, and all the other companies they have absorbed) has yet to experience a fatality in fixed-wing operations since their inception.
 
jergar999 said:
The EC-135 is a joke above 3000msl, plenty of places ditch theirs for an Astar or 407 so they can actually lift something when it gets warm out. The helicopter in this accident was a very light AS350-B3e, which has about the best power to weight ratio you'll find in the class. The pilot was a very experienced senior pilot who was also employed by the union to show up and give info at basic indoc classes and assist with grievances on the pilots behalf.

If money was no object the EC-145 or Bell 429 would be everywhere, but most places simply can't support the expense of those aircraft and keep running. I also think in some instances a more capable aircraft might lead to overconfidence and wouldn't help the safety record any.

Moreover - and I know I won't make friends saying it - safety on rotor is pathetic compared to fixed-wing aircraft, and no other company is any better. Air Methods became a giant because their safety record gave them a financial advantage via cheaper insurance than any other EMS company, and they slowly acquired most of their competition.

AMC (just like Rocky Mountain, CJ Systems, Omniflight, ARCH, LifeNet, and all the other companies they have absorbed) has yet to experience a fatality in fixed-wing operations since their inception.
Click to expand...

RW is always going to be more riskier, and hence somewhat less safe, then FW; simply due to the different types and amounts of risks encountered by each side. It's more on RW, simply put. That's not going to change.

The AStar, loaded out, is a joke above not much higher than an EC-135. Just not much there, and too tight of tolerances with the2B/2B1/2D engines on the B3 series. Plus, just too small a helicopter for EMS ops......barely can carry a patient with all the other crap it has to carry.

I still say BK or BO, but they're not made anymore. I agree EC-145/B429/A119-129 would be very nice, but something is going to have to be done to allow aircraft like that to come online. The lighter craft are barely cutting it.
 
The base I fly at had to ditch the 135 for an Astar so we could keep enough fuel on board to do interhospital transports but still have lift power to do scene work above 5000' and 70 degrees. The Astar was tiny, but would lift almost anything with plenty of fuel at density altitudes well above 8k, and that was a standard B3, and not the more powerful B3e model that crashed.

We have a 407GX now which does fairly well, but everyone (pilots and medical crew) miss the Astar for its power, or the 222 we had before the EC-135.

I agree that rotor will never be as safe as fixed-wing, but it's still very safe given how many of those aircraft have sprung up and are flying all over.
 
Which is funny, because our 2B1 B3s are complete dogs. Of course, much of that is the amount of weight in mission equipment we hang on them to begin with, prior to crew and crew's equipment, so it's really our own fault in many ways. But for what we're doing, working inside mountains and cliffisdes, etc, it's just a bad bird to have since it's always limiting out....normally in TGT.....with anything more than 50-60% fuel onboard and at 5000MSL +. Then again, we're way hotter here than 70 degrees also......talking summer temps of 110+ on the desert floor. Exceeding a limit, especially with that idiotic droop compensator which has no programming for any kind of limits and will send you exceeding them when you press the power pedal when needed at high power settings, is another thing that just causes problems for us.

We should've gotten 407s for what we do, or even better yey (best, actually) MD530s.
 
MikeD said:
As a start, I've long been for the FAA coming out with a list of approved helicopter types for EMS. In my opinion, EC-135 and up, AW119 and up, and Bell 407 and up. Single or twin engine makes no difference to me.
Click to expand...
How would that work? Classes for specific patient and crew combinations? For example, a type approved for single pilot + 2 paramedics+1 patient.
 
Pilot Fighter said:
How would that work? Classes for specific patient and crew combinations? For example, a type approved for single pilot + 2 paramedics+1 patient.
Click to expand...

Something to that effect. My science isn't exact yet, my initial statement being more an initial WAG. But something like this would be a good start. Multiple patients aren't generally carried, as there isnt room for them on the smaller birds, and even the bigger birds it just wasn't done; unlike military medevacs.

But the BK and BO, and to a certain extent the EC-145, are great with the higher mount tail rotor, providing some on-scene safety, rear clamshell doors as well as sliding side doors for unobstructed access, and a patient compartment separate from the cockpit.....much like a ground ambulance.
 
MikeD said:
Something to that effect. My science isn't exact yet, my initial statement being more an initial WAG. But something like this would be a good start. Multiple patients aren't generally carried, as there isnt room for them on the smaller birds, and even the bigger birds it just wasn't done; unlike military medevacs.

But the BK and BO, and to a certain extent the EC-145, are great with the higher mount tail rotor, providing some on-scene safety, rear clamshell doors as well as sliding side doors for unobstructed access, and a patient compartment separate from the cockpit.....much like a ground ambulance.
Click to expand...
I was just thinking performance, versus overall suitability for EMS. I guess there's nothing keeping me from modifying an R-44 and starting an EMS operation. Are there certifying non-governmental agencies or associations that provide accreditation for EMS operations? We've all seen stretchers or litters being loaded onto plane-jane aircraft. I guess insurance might be the limiting factor.

[plain-jane]
 
Last edited:
Pilot Fighter said:
Are there certifying non-governmental agencies or associations that provide accreditation for EMS operations?
Click to expand...

They are about as worthwhile as Argus or Wyvern. "As long as the check clears..."

Here's another question: how heavy are your EMS kits? Bags, monitors, etc...what percentage of your useful load does that eat up? Local EMS boards and the accreditation agencies seem to direct all the crap that's carried.

I seem to recall our EMS kit at the last place (community based op and some scene work in a f/w) was about 470 lbs.
 
CAAMTS is the non-government certification that is required in many states (or creates a top of the transport pecking list) to conduct ALS transports. State EMS boards also have requirements to license aircraft as ambulances. I have spent the last 14 years carrying a heavy and cumbersome folding stretcher in the back of King Airs and PC12s to keep the ambulance certification but have never used it. It sits next to the required survival kit. The kit's weight seems inversely proportional to its usefulness, but if I smack the ground at 300+ knots at least I'll have stale granola bars and a space blanket.

Overall, I would say we have several hundred pounds of stuff that we carry that is absolutely useless. I have also discovered that if you are over fifty and fly EMS it is impossible for you to board an aircraft without at least three bottles of water and a set of chocks. These items are removed later by a different pilot, most recently I pulled 17 bottles of Arrowhead and three blue sets of chocks.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top