Wreckless Or Right??

Mark815 said:
Doesn't seem to be the most popular opinion here but I'm gonna agree with you. I wasn't there nor do I know what the weather was, but if the airport runway was closed, then IMO they shouldn't have gone. Again I don't know all the details but what if there was someone\something (equipment or vehicle) on the runway and a jet comes barreling down at them? Norwood is a stones throw from Boston, if the weather was even MVFR I don't see why they couldn't get a helicopter to Norwood to bring the organ back. I understand it's trying to save a life, but when I hear of stuff like this all I can think about is how many life flight aircraft have crashed because they were trying to 'save a life' and it ends up costing them not only the victims life but also their own.
Click to expand...

Personally, in a FW, I've always treated a closed runway as just that: closed.

In EMS/fire service, one of the tenants is not to put yourself in a situation where you will likely get killed trying to save a life. Since now there are multiple victims, etc. An extreme example, yes, but one that needs to be taken into consideration in the sense of "is the risk we're taking for this mission a valid one?"

In 1987, I remember a Cessna 414 air ambulance bird that operated out of the same FBO I did. It was flying from PHX on a night run up to the town of Chinle on the Navajo reservation. When the pilot arrived, there was little to no moon, and he found the runway lights to be working only on one side of the runway. He commenced an approach, selecting one side of the runway lights to aim towards......50/50 chance of getting it right.....and picked the wrong side. By the time the ground illuminated in the landing lights showing it was the wrong side and he initiate a go-around, he was low enough that he hit a fence at the field perimeter and crash landed beyond it. I remember the pilot of that aircraft, but can't remember what the medical emergency they were responding to was at that night. I do wonder if it was worth the risk that was taken to try and get into that field.

What sucks, was this accident came less than a month after a air medical Cessna 441 from the same FBO flew into the ground on approach on a dark night into Flagstaff, AZ. Knew that crew too. That crew flew from PHX to FLG to pick up a woman who was having labor complications. WX was IMC with snow and low ceiling. Pilot elected to fly a VOR-A approach, but reported an inverter problem, got spatial orientation, and impacted the ground in a near 90 degree angle, making a crater that just had the vertical stab of the aircraft sticking out. Turns out the plane had a problem with the co-pilot AI, but the pilot also didn't have the required hours to be flying that operation. Still, one has to wonder if the pilot pressed a bad situation WX-wise that he could see coming, and/or didn't fall back on instrument basics when he did start having problems.

Lives lost needlessly in trying to save a life that may or my have been in dire circumstance.
 
So they took off from a closed runway to save some lives. Big freakin deal. I ask the airport manager what if it was your, or your son, or your daughter. Sometimes, because of politics and bureaucracy, things take longer than necessary. Too bad for the airport manager. If the feds want to do something about it, let them handle it. Get off your high horse and 'eff off pal. You manage an airport.
 
mshunter said:
So they took off from a closed runway to save some lives. Big freakin deal. I ask the airport manager what if it was your, or your son, or your daughter. Sometimes, because of politics and bureaucracy, things take longer than necessary. Too bad for the airport manager. If the feds want to do something about it, let them handle it. Get off your high horse and 'eff off pal. You manage an airport.
Click to expand...

So you're assuming that this was the ONLY option available to save that life/lives?
 
People who are at the top of the list for a transplant will still get one the next time organs become available. Rarely is anyone so critical that they will die within 2 days if they don't get the organs. If a person is that unstable, chances are they wouldn't be doing the surgery anyway.

I don't know if you guys recall the survival flight that crashed a few years ago going out of Milwaukee to Ann Arbor - it was carrying a pair of lungs on board for a patient. All 6 people on the plane were killed, and the patient got a different set of lungs a day or two later. Not saying that those pilots were in the same situation (that was a runaway trim issue) but that organ flight is not an immediate life or death issue.

Beyond that, they could have gotten a helicopter to fly them if it was that desperate.
 
Chances are it was the only option. I'm not aware of any local competitors. Let us think about this one for a second. The organ was certainly not being moved from Norwood to Boston; it was most likely being picked up in Boston and sent out to either Bermuda or Nantucket. The only feasible way to either option is by plane. The drive/ferry combo to ACK is at least 4 - 5 hours with no traffic/delays.

This is a very political conflict.

EDIT: I'm willing to bet the journalist looked at flightaware on the tails and only saw the OWD-BOS legs, although there were additional BOS-Wherever legs. They do a lot of "pick up harvested organs in Boston and fly them elsewhere in the country."
 
SteveC said:
So you're assuming that this was the ONLY option available to save that life/lives?
Click to expand...


No, but he doesn't have the authority to pursue certificate action. I hold the organ transplant/medivac/mercy flights on the same level as firefighters/police/doctors/nurses. If they feel it is necessary to depart from a runway that they feel is safe regardless if the surface is closed, it's their decision. If they get a 91.13 violation, then let the feds decide, not some airport manager. And having a mother who is a nurse, sometimes it is that critical to get the organ their right now.

Can you at least agree that it takes more time than necessary to get an airport re-opened because of all the red tape and political bs that needs to be gotten through?

Edit to add: For the amount of people needing transplants vs the amount of harvested organs, I feel these pilots excersied thier judgment to the best of their given circumstances. Organs will only last outside a body for so long, and it may not have been an issue of how long the person had, but rather how long the organs would last. Not knowing all the circumstances, I still feel that these things are time sensitive. Who's to say it wasn't a hard match to find, and no one knows when the next match will come up. It may not be a urgent life or death issue this time, but next time it could be.
 
I have a few friends who fly life flights. One of the things that happens when they get a call for a trip to pick up somebody is that dispatch only asks them what the weather is, is it legal. The pilot's in this operation are completely un-aware of anything to do with the patient..

The rules are there for ALL of us to obey, and as we have discussed whenever a new rule comes out, they have been written by the blood of others. It would be wise to follow them no matter what.

A closed runway and the airport manager not allowing anybody to take off while might seem one sided from us, but what about his side. There could be a large ammount of liability the airport would be under if the airplane crashed.

I do agree that it is no where in the airport manager or the city council to say anything regarding the status of a possible pilot certificate action other than to answer any questions the FAA might bring up.
 
The outcome of the flight doesn't matter. Would some of you change your opinion if the pilot was simply delivering mail, parts, or returning a client from a long work week?

Remove the outcome/reason for the flight. The runway was closed. There are very few jobs where you are expected to take extra risk in order to accomplish your flight (and most of those that do give you fancy acronyms in front of your name).
 
The story says an email was sent out about the airport being closed, maybe I missed it, but was there a notam sent? And what was the verbage?

Part of my issue being, if atc was asking permission for the flighs to depart, then I assume it was closed, except for those with ppr. Also, if the field was completely shut down, why was the tower staffed? The would most likely have notamed themselfs closed, and gone home I would think.

There are a lot of details that make me think the straight story hasn't been told yet, or that there was a communication break down. If the pilots thought they had ppr to go, then no not reckless.
 
TUCKnTRUCK said:
Also, if the field was completely shut down, why was the tower staffed? The would most likely have notamed themselfs closed, and gone home I would think.
Click to expand...

There's no reason for the tower not to be open if it's during their hour of regular operation. Don't forget, they're not just there to tell airplanes to land or takeoff, there's still ground traffic in the form of aircraft repositions, airport vehicles etc etc. There were countless time's while working line that the airport was closed, yet the controllers were still there not only giving clearances to us ground vehicles, but still putting out a full ATIS every hour with a 'The Barnes-Westfield airport is closed, advise you have information XYZ' at the end.

mshunter said:
So they took off from a closed runway to save some lives. Big freakin deal. I ask the airport manager what if it was your, or your son, or your daughter. Sometimes, because of politics and bureaucracy, things take longer than necessary. Too bad for the airport manager. If the feds want to do something about it, let them handle it. Get off your high horse and 'eff off pal. You manage an airport.
Click to expand...

What if the situation was 'Pilots bust minimums to deliver organs to save life'? Would it still be ok if they made it in safely? Like MikeD said, a closed runway should be treated as such. If there were vehicles or people on that runway that the pilots hadn't seen, and actually ran into them, could you imagine the headlines? I understand the whole politics\red tape stuff, but usually runway closures\openings aren't full of politics and red tape, so I'm not sure why this is coming up so much. If it was due to flooding, usually all it takes is the airport manager to go out there, inspect it, and let ATC know that the runway is clear and safe for operation. And again, if it was really that urgent I'm sure there's plenty of helicopters that could deliver the cargo to another airport for delivery.
 
TUCKnTRUCK said:
The story says an email was sent out about the airport being closed, maybe I missed it, but was there a notam sent? And what was the verbage?
Click to expand...

I was thinking some of the same things. Was it NOTAM'd closed or emailed closed?

It's early and haven't had a coffee yet, but I'm missing the dates to find a true sequence of events. Did the airport manager email it closed then wait for the FAA to come out a few days later before issuing the NOTAM? At what point in this drama did they take off?

If there was a NOTAM, it's closed and they'll get smacked for that. If there wasn't an official NOTAM, they're good to go. I agree that the airport board thinks they have more power than they do.
 
Thanks for the people who pointed out it should have been reckless - lots of work this weekend and not much sleep.

I am amazed by the responses - the pilots took off on a closed runway all under the notion we are saving lives - for the flight crew these flights should be no different than flying wealthy businessman, mail or any other cargo. I believe it is this attitude that has caused so many air ambulance accident over the years. There are plenty of business aircraft in the Northeast that they could have used.
 
Is taking off on a runway which is partially unsuable dangerous?

No, if you take several steps (measuring available distance, walking the pavement to be sure there are no obstacles, placing observers to keep everybody clear, ect) to ensure that there are no serious hazards. When I was a student pilot, the runway was being repaved, and the parallel taxiway was designated the temporary "runway".


Is it a violation?

I don't know, it really depends on who the FSDO inspector is. There is no regulation stating you have to take off from a runway at all. You can land on a county road, or someones driveway if you wish.


Was this mission so important that they had to take off on a Notam'd runway?

Probably not. There were probably a hundred other ways to get those organs to the people who needed them.
 
400A said:
I will be willing to bet that the organs were not harvested at the airport.

Just what the air ambulance industry needs, more dumbasses who think the rules don't apply to them and that "lifeguard" status gives you carte blanche to disregard the regs and common sense.

Makes me wonder what other inconvenient rules they disregard in the name of "saving lives" :rolleyes:
Click to expand...
I agree 100%.

Absolutely careless, reckless and stupid. Please note I didn't say "dangerous" because it very well may not have been.

I'm wondering how often they over-load the airplanes to satisfy a customer (vs doing a fuel stop), fudge the W&B numbers, pencil whip inspections, etc.

-mini
 
I call question to those calling this 'reckless, careless, and stupid'.

While arguably illegal, without the actual runway data and actual level contamination being known.

The runways at OWD are both 4000 feet long, give or take a few feet.

... so if the airport authority closed the runway because there was a big puddle in the last third of the runway or something.. how do we know that the airplane in question isn't already gear up and climbing by that point?

I think we're all falling into that trap of Monday morning quarterbacking this crew without anywhere near all the data at this point. I definitely include myself in that statement- I'm quick to defend a Medevac crew any day. Personal prejudice of mine.

On one hand, the airport authority is saying "the runways, taxi lights, etc" were 'under water'.

Meanwhile the two crews are saying that the runways were dry.

Somebody's lying. Possibly both parties.
 
Firebird2XC said:
I call question to those calling this 'reckless, careless, and stupid'.

While arguably illegal, without the actual runway data and actual level contamination being known.

The runways at OWD are both 4000 feet long, give or take a few feet.

... so if the airport authority closed the runway because there was a big puddle in the last third of the runway or something.. how do we know that the airplane in question isn't already gear up and climbing by that point?
Click to expand...
I can land in 1700 RVR as easily as 1800 RVR. Actually, I probably can't tell the difference.

One is careless and reckless, one is just fine.

Where do you draw the line?

My airplane flies just fine. Does it need an inspection every 100 hours? Nope. The mx pops open a few panels, checks the tires, puts some oil in the engines and away we go. Does anything change? Nope.

If I fly without it, I'm still in big trouble.

The rules are there for a reason. Either you follow them or you don't. If you don't, you have no business being in the air.

-mini
 
minitour said:
I can land in 1700 RVR as easily as 1800 RVR. Actually, I probably can't tell the difference.

My airplane flies just fine. Does it need an inspection every 100 hours?

One is careless and reckless, one is just fine.

Where do you draw the line?
Click to expand...

The difference is that there is regulation requiring you to abide by approach mins and 100hr inspection requirements.

However taking of from a closed runway (drag strip, county road, cow pasture, or anywhere else) is not in violation of any of the FARs, except possibly pt 91.13. Which is a subjective opinion of whichever FSDO inspector is examining the incident in question
 
minitour said:
The rules are there for a reason. Either you follow them or you don't. If you don't, you have no business being in the air.

-mini
Click to expand...

Well, sure. Illegal is illegal. But I think that's the point of the debate.

How do you really define reckless and careless?

How do we really know this wasn't a carefully calculated risk?

The rules exist for the lowest common denominator. Was it really reckless?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top