Ntsb Hearings

[Elan Head]

Hi everyone,

 

Here's a U.S. topic that Canadian readers might want to weigh in on as well. I'm in Washington, D.C. this week covering NTSB hearings on the HEMS industry: four fun, fun, fun-filled days of sitting in an uncomfortable chair in a basement conference room with no cell reception (so I can't even distract myself with text messages. Which is possibly what the NTSB had in mind when they designed the place). All that aside, though, the hearings are bringing up some interesting points about how the US HEMS industry operates. It's a very free-market model in the US, very different from the rest of the world.

 

We Americans love our free markets, but I think the hearings are raising some legitimate questions about whether the HEMS industry needs more regulation. Here are some of the q's that have come up in the past few days:

 

1. Does the US have too many EMS helicopters? The US has around 830 helicopters serving an EMS role. Canada has 20. Does competition improve the system or is it a detriment to safety?

 

2. Should HEMS operators be reimbursed only for patient transfers, or for response and readiness as well? More to the point: does reimbursing only for patient transfers motivate operators to accept as many flights as possible — even ones they shouldn't?

 

3. Does the FAA need to mandate equipment (TAWS, NVG) and/or crew (two-pilot) requirements?

 

4. Does the NTSB need to install wireless internet in its media room? (Yes.)

 

Would love to hear thoughts on 1 to 3 (number 4 I've pretty well made up my mind on).

 

Cheers!

 

Elan

 

 

[R22Captain]

I guess the big difference between the US and Canada is the health care systems itself. Canada has a public health care system. Hospitals aren't competing with each other to get their heli there first to make a buck.

 

Have a few friends who fly EMS in the States and the differences are shocking. Not going to repeat any stories on here as I'm sure a few situations weren't quite legal. But from his words it was how they had to get the job done to keep the hospital happy.

 

But having no first hand experience with EMS ops in the states I don't want to say too much. But I can bever keep my mouth shut so.....

Everything on this side of the border is 2 crew/ multi engine. The only ems accident I can remember is the 76 last year. Haven't heard the final report on that but appears to be mechanical.

The accidents in the states appear to be mostly involving SE sinlge pilot machines. I haven't read indepth too many accident reports (if you have any link Elan to share that'd be great ) but it'd be interesting to see how many were a result of maybe a PDM error or a mech problem where a second engine would have been of value.

 

I don't want to get into SE ops at night with a patient on board. Engines don't wait for dawn to come before spitting parts out.

 

Having said all that, it's hard to compare an operation of 20 machines to 830...but there should be zero accidents. There are lots of ways to manage the inharent risks of EMS ops.

[R22Captain]

Maybe I should have read the articles before I posted.

 

This pretty much echoes what I was thinking

 

• Sylvain Séguin of Canadian Helicopters described the HEMS operating environment in Canada. Since 1977, he said, the Canadian HEMS industry has flown around 230,000 hours with no fatal accidents. Hallmarks of the Canadian paradigm include government funding, a stricter regulatory framework with well-defined weather minimums, and industry insistence on twin-engine aircraft and dual-pilot, rather than single-pilot, IFR.

 

Prett hard for any oprerator to argue with that. 0% in 230,000 compared to 2% every 100,000 hours.

[Elan Head]

Hi R22 Cap'n,

 

Just finished my wrap-up on the hearings which should be posted online later tonight. Just to clarify, that accident rate is 2 per 100,000 (not 2 percent). That's also "just" the 2008 accident rate. But apparently... the FAA thinks the accident rate is just fine!

 

Crazy. There were some qualifying comments — "even one accident is too much"; "we need to intensify our efforts" — but overall, the FAA officials who testified today said that their current, non-mandatory safety notices, advisory circulars, etc. are significantly improving safety in the industry. Apparently, the 13 accidents that killed 29 people in 2008 were a statistical aberration... Ah yes, and the FAA's spokesman told me that EMS safety is primarily the responsibility of the pilot in command, and that pilots are the ones "breaking the rules," and that if pilots want better technology and safer operations, then they, the pilots, are responsible for taking it up with their employers... :shock:

 

Things got a little heated at that point. Obviously I'm coming at this from a pilot's perspective, but... un-freakin'-believable!

 

Elan

[R22Captain]

Elan, it's great hearing your point of view as this is happening. And thank you for correcting my statisical error

 

FAA thinks the accident rate is just fine!

 

 

That's insane. They should be aiming for 0 as the only acceptable number. And 13 accidents resulting in 29 deaths? I don't know if we had that many deaths in the entire Canadian helicopter industry in 2008?

 

I guess having these hearings is the first step, but seems like they are pointing the gun at the pilots. The operators and the FAA should be the ones in the crosshairs. If pilots are breaking the rules, then deal with them on an individual basis. If all 29 deaths were a result of pilots going outside the regs then there are serious problems.

 

From an outsider looking down south the whole idea of a safety culture seems to be absent. I guess the norm to us up north here is 2 sets of eyes and 2 engines. Seems to be simple logic. Safety margins on everything. TC definalty has it's shortcomings but they have a handle on this field.

 

NVG is slowly trickling into the canadian market. But as Mr. Seguin point we've been doing this 77, and I might add without NVG, without TCAS, without terrain warning etc, etc.

 

Seems like they are trying to band-aid the problem by throwing fancy electronics at it and then when the next accident happens to some guy out by himself trying run all these high-techs, and fly the machine and plows into the hillside with a patient on board, it'll just give the FAA more ammo to blame it on the pilot for making a bad call.

[Blackmac]

Hi everyone,

 

Here's a U.S. topic that Canadian readers might want to weigh in on as well. I'm in Washington, D.C. this week covering NTSB hearings on the HEMS industry: four fun, fun, fun-filled days of sitting in an uncomfortable chair in a basement conference room with no cell reception (so I can't even distract myself with text messages. Which is possibly what the NTSB had in mind when they designed the place). All that aside, though, the hearings are bringing up some interesting points about how the US HEMS industry operates. It's a very free-market model in the US, very different from the rest of the world.

 

We Americans love our free markets, but I think the hearings are raising some legitimate questions about whether the HEMS industry needs more regulation. Here are some of the q's that have come up in the past few days:

 

1. Does the US have too many EMS helicopters? The US has around 830 helicopters serving an EMS role. Canada has 20. Does competition improve the system or is it a detriment to safety?

 

2. Should HEMS operators be reimbursed only for patient transfers, or for response and readiness as well? More to the point: does reimbursing only for patient transfers motivate operators to accept as many flights as possible — even ones they shouldn't?

 

3. Does the FAA need to mandate equipment (TAWS, NVG) and/or crew (two-pilot) requirements?

 

4. Does the NTSB need to install wireless internet in its media room? (Yes.)

 

Would love to hear thoughts on 1 to 3 (number 4 I've pretty well made up my mind on).

 

Cheers!

 

Elan

 

 

1. Does the US have too many EMS helicopters? The US has around 830 helicopters serving an EMS role. Canada has 20. Does competition improve the system or is it a detriment to safety?

 

2. Should HEMS operators be reimbursed only for patient transfers, or for response and readiness as well? More to the point: does reimbursing only for patient transfers motivate operators to accept as many flights as possible — even ones they shouldn't?

 

IMO: Contractors should be contracted on a permanent basis of at least five years with a guarenteed monthly standby rate for machine and crews and an hourly rate for operating costs when utilized. When requests for proposals are put out by the hospital they should utilize a consultant who is familiar with the EMS industry. They can always come to Canada for help (no conflict) if needed. One of the requirements in the request for proposal (RFP) is to have a strict Safety Management System(SMS) in place and enforced and AUDITED on a regular basis by a representative of the contracting authority. The person who is in charge of the Safety Management System and all matters of enforcement is the CEO of the company and the BUCK stops there.

 

Give a company (helicopter) a fair return and expect the same in return, not miracles.

 

All contractual requirements including equipment should be clearly spelled out and adherd to.

 

The helicopter company CEO will designate the PIC of any helicopter (EMS) contracted to abide by the established operating procedures of the company and is the final authority as to when a flight will be carried out.

 

3. Does the FAA need to mandate equipment (TAWS, NVG) and/or crew (two-pilot) requirements?

 

IMO: The only helicpters used for EMS should be Twin Engine, Two Pilots and fully IFR.

 

4. Does the NTSB need to install wireless INTERNET in meadia room? (Yes)

 

IMO: Agreed.

 

 

 

[treetopflyer]

Everything on this side of the border is 2 crew/ multi engine. The only ems accident I can remember is the 76 last year. Haven't heard the final report on that but appears to be mechanical.

 

The rumour I heard late last year was that it may not have been mechanical...also haven't seen the final report.

 

[R22Captain]

The rumour I heard late last year was that it may not have been mechanical...also haven't seen the final report.

 

I have no idea either....maybe I should have worded my post better, Guess what I was trying to indicate that it wasn't CFIT or something along that line.

 

[treetopflyer]

I have no idea either....maybe I should have worded my post better, Guess what I was trying to indicate that it wasn't CFIT or something along that line.

 

It may have been something of the CFIT genre if the helicopter was operating as advertised and they hit the ground during final approach.

 

Night cone pad ops to blackholes with no visual horizon or references unfortunately does not leave much room for error. It always pissed me off that here we are doing these approaches when there was powerlines within a few hundred feet and we could have been operating to a lit landing site. I hope the CHL-EMS guys have sorted that mess out by now. As per the old boy mentality that that's the way we've always done it I doubt anyone has pushed the issue. Plus it's a northern base issue versus a southern Ontario issue so lots of deaf ears.

 

ttf

[Elan Head]

"That's the way we've always done it" seems to be the bane of the industry, wherever you go. I think helicopter pilots tend to be risk-takers by nature, and we like that PIC authority to pull off s**t we probably shouldn't. The thing is, most industries got over that attitude decades ago, and are far, far safer because of it.

 

When it comes to the HEMS industry in the U.S., when we're flying patients who really have no choice in their mode of transport, I think we have an obligation to get over our egos and work to create as safe a system as possible. I've read posts on other forums from pilots who tend to agree with the FAA, i.e. if a HEMS helicopter crashes, it's the pilot's fault. Even if you, personally, are the best pilot in the world (and who isn't??), the industry is always going to have "average" pilots, too. The industry shouldn't cater to bad pilots, necessarily, but neither can we base a system on everyone being heroes with the moral fortitude to lose their job rather than take a flight that's maybe even a little bit questionable.

 

IMO!

 

Elan