Jump to content

Recommended Posts

All valid points. And the Rules are the Rules. Why has this suddenly come up? Have the regulations or standards been amended. Or is this just another case of TC suddenly changing their interpretation? The only reason I commented was the use of the term: "even for the purposes of saving human life".

 

As I stated, it would have to be very extenuating circumstances, but If I was convinced I could save your life by landing once at an H1 Helipad, in a single engine helicopter, believe it or not I might just do it...lol

 

Many helicopter pilots flying Light and Intermediates across the country are in very remote locations (where medivacs generally refuse to land), 100s of miles from the nearest hospital, with no medical personnel to assist, yet are expected to respond to emergencies that involve their co-workers and colleagues regularly. The scenario that came to mind is the pilot flying in with only a dying co-worker or colleague on the floor beside him, knowing if he doesn't get to a hospital before he's loaded into a ground ambulance (for a 40 minute ride), he will die.

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Replies 43
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Posts

Guys take a minute and think about what could potentially happen with an engine failure with a single engine helicopter on approach or departure and how many lives could potentially be lost to try and

A 355NP isn't a CAT A aircraft. The only CAT A heli pad on the coast is london air private estate on Sonara island and thats just to keep the peasant out.   Nice to see HAC is racing to the bottom,

If you land at Hospital heli pad, no body will come outside to meet you. They will call an ambulance or fire department. You don't just show up at a hospital.     HAC "ONLY" represents owners in

And you would probably get away with it too, whereas I operate in a very scrutinized environment. My company, the customer and TC are always watching our every move so we don't get the opportunity to exercise our personal judgement.

 

RD

Link to post
Share on other sites

And this is how that would read at the Tribunal,

 

'Freewheel did knowingly disregard a TC regulation after make a medical diagnosis that he acknowledges he is not competent to make'.

 

How do you think that will play out?

 

RD

Well which is it? I'd "probably get away with it"...or the above? ;)

 

I suppose this could be further complicated if heliports are being classified inconsistently. Given the well known issue of inconsistent enforcement and interpretation of "built up area" and the associated regulations across the country that wouldn't surprise me.

 

We've established the rules haven't changed in a long time, so are there any H1 heliports that pilots feel shouldn't be classified as such (in accordance with CARs part 3 requirements? Anyone?

 

These newly classified heliports on the Island...have they recently become completely surrounded by obstacles to the point where there are no longer safe approach, departures and emergency landing areas? Were they always unsafe and suddenly the regulator revognized they should have been H1 previously?

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 2 weeks later...

... Were they always unsafe and suddenly the regulator revognized they should have been H1 previously?

 

Maybe because there were no, or very few, true Cat A helicopters and now there are?...

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

... The only thing I find odd about the way the regs are written is the 15 foot obstacle clearance (ground effect) have heard this may have been put in place for some not so CAT A twins. Try and find an aircraft chart that will support 15 foot clearance.....

 

As far as I understand Cat A and H1 originally came from ICAO / Europe.

The 15 ft obstacle criteria is part of the ICAO H1 definition.

 

The AW139 will meet the requirements, but then that's $ xx,000,000 per aircraft!

Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Maybe because there were no, or very few, true Cat A helicopters and now there are?...

That should be totally irrelevant. Under the aeronautics act and CARs, TC is legally bound to enforce the rules (as written)...regardless of the availability of a certain type of aircraft.

 

Ensuring you have the required equipment (resources) to meet the minimum requirement is the pilot and operators responsibility.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Interesting discussion. I have recently been working with a community about a hospital helipad. I can't yet go into details but I will shed some light on the topic.

 

The TC regulations have been in place for about 10 years but only recently have been enforced. TC had also advised the Health Authorities (the owners of the heliports) that it is their responsibility for enforce and report any violators of the H1 requirements. Essentially they have told them to report on anyone who lands at the heliports without prior permission and is not Air Ambulance.

 

There are many problems with this new arrangement. The first is TC is not recognizing the realistic scenario of an "unstabilized patient". Air Ambulance typically transports stabilized patients, with paramedics onboard. An unstabilized patient is in need of immediate medical attention and quite often the "Golden hour" is a factor. The type of work where these heavy trauma accidents happen are quite often taking place in remote locations around the country. The support aircraft in these work operations are almost always single engine. It is this critical step in getting patients stabilized that TC is cutting communities off from.

 

The second is the TC is not recognizing the sacristy of H1 capable aircraft. We ran the numbers on the TC website of all the H1 capable aircraft registered in the province of BC. We came to 1.6%. This is not because operators are "being cheap" or "change is wrong" it is simply because these H1 aircraft are not suitable for the type of work required in some of these industries e.g. logging, shake block, seismic.

 

We have found the local TC understanding of the situation and willing to work with us to find a solution. However they are bound to a regulation that is very restricting. TC Ottawa implemented these rules with a complete disregard to the impact it will have on communities across the country. There was no consultation what so ever with these communities as to how they can keep these hospital heliports open to the citizens working remotely outside of town. Almost all of these communities were not told that their hospitals are now closed to the local helicopter operators. No solutions to this problem has been presented by TC.

 

I will write again when I have more...

  • Like 3
Link to post
Share on other sites

From Pages A91-A92 of the General section of the CFS (Canadian Flight Supplement)

 

H1: Helicopters permitted to use an H1 heliport (arr/dep) shall be multi-engined and capable of remaining at least 4.5 m (15 feet) above all obstacles within the approach/departure area when operating in accordance with their Aircraft Flight Manual with one engine inoperative.

 

H2: Helicopters permitted to use an H2 heliport (arr/dep) shall be multi-engined.

 

H3: H3 heliport (arr/dep) available for single-engined or multi-engined helicopters.

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

From Pages A91-A92 of the General section of the CFS (Canadian Flight Supplement)

 

 

That is pretty much the same as what is stated in CASS 325 Heliport Standards (specifically 325.19). This standard was imtroduced June 30, 2007 and has not been amended since.

 

So why does it seem that TC is only now (almost 9 years later) enforcing it?

 

Also surprising that some operators did not themselves recognize the compliance requirements.

 

http://www.cbc.ca/beta/news/canada/nova-scotia/ehs-hospital-lifeflight-trauma-emergency-canadian-helicopters-inc-1.3559073

Link to post
Share on other sites

This one sheds a little more light on the situation:

 

http://www.cbc.ca/beta/news/canada/nova-scotia/nova-scotia-air-ambulance-1.3560351

 

Transport Canada says there was no change in regulations, but that it audits aviation companies to ensure compliance and "inspectors continuously ensure that operators meet the safety standards."

 

So...No change in regs....the commercial operator has conducted thousands of rooftop landings for decades (which we are now told were in violation to standards) in downtown Halifax ...yet TC "inspectors continuously ensure operators meet safety standards"?

 

Who writes this stuff for TC? how can they say it with a straight face?

Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
×
×
  • Create New...