Forestry Pads...

[Skids Up]

Here’s a question for you…

 

A few years ago when I was in the states on fires, someone had to go and inspect a helipad after it had been constructed, to approve it for use. There was only one where I was involved in the approval, and it consisted in flying the individual into the pad, (himself – in an L3!), landed, and looked around, and then he asked what I thought. I said, “It looks good!” :up: and we went back and he advised the operations that the pad was good to use. Only then could anyone else go and land on it.

 

If an incident, accident then happened at that pad that was directly related to the pad area, I assume that forestry would be responsible for some or most of the blame. Thinking here of bad pad construction, not bad piloting…

 

Anyone know any different?

 

On most (all) fires that I have been on in this great country of ours from BC to Ontario, forestry crews cut the pads and then we just use them… as we see fit. I have never seen anyone “approve” or otherwise check for approaches, departures, ground clearance, stability or whatnot. Someone goes in and lands and the rest of us just follow blindly because “if he can do it, so can I”.

 

But should the people who construct it, be responsible for it?

Should forestry, because they had their crews construct it?

Should we as pilots, just accept it, because either the worst or best pilot on the job landed there first?

If I refuse and you accept, who is right? :shock:

Is it because you are better than me, or that you don’t know better?

Or if I don’t, (won’t) am I afraid that I might be looking for another fire in the near future?

 

 

What are your thoughts?

[Reddog]

I had a similar experience in Ontario.

 

The Ministry of Health asked me to inspect a new community pad in Eastern Ontario. Being the nice guy that I am, I said sure. So off I went with my wife and a GPS for a nice (reimbursed) drive in the country.

 

We got there. Had a look. The pad was cool. We had lunch locally. Then we headed home.

 

I sent a fax (no email in those days) to MoH and informed them the the pad was acceptable for Cougar's Air Ambulance. MoH calls back and asks "but what about CHC and Huisson?". I told them that I couldn't speak for them, just for Cougar, if CHC and Huisson wanted to take my word on the acceptability of the pad that was up to them.

 

The moral of this really lame story is; in these days of litigation and reluctant insurance companies unless you are a qualified helipad certificator be careful about what and who you approve things for.

[Harmonic_Vibe]

Ultimately the responsibility is with the pilot, regardless of who approved the pad. If you're on initial attack (and hence first on the scene) you need to find a spot close enough to the fire that the guys can get on the ground, start fighting the fire and cutting pads closer to it, if necessary. Theoretically this is where Rap comes in, but in the vast majority of cases there's a spot close enough for you to get guys on the ground without assistance.

 

As for pads on project fires... well, I was sent to help pick up crews once on a fire north of Ft McMurray years ago. The fire had been going for about a week but I hadn't been there before. There were about ten machines picking up crews from two pads on the lakeshore. I was the fifth machine in a row to land on one of the pads. To land on the pad you had to have your tail towards the water and there were some low bushes along the water's edge. After I landed I leaned out to look back at my tail as the ground was sloped enough that I felt the tailrotor would be close to the bushes if not to the water itself. It wasn't close to the bushes... it was in a bush spraying foliage in all directions... I shut down and examined the T/R for damage (there wasn't any) and to talk to all the guys waiting for their flight... They told me that I was "the fourth or fifth guy that day" to stick my tail in the bush... the fact that the bush had been trimmed to an almost uniform height by many tailrotors confirmed this... I asked the ground crews (who were standing around with chainsaws) why they hadn't cut the bushes down... they said "no one asked us to"...

 

At the end of the day I filled out a forestry, as well as a company, incident report. Forestry stated that if I "didn't like a pad" then I "didn't have to land there"... but let's face it... if you won't land on a pad that everybody's landing on/in then you'll look a little silly. The Chief Pilot said that as far as he was concerned it was no one's fault but mine... and the fact that everyone else that landed there was "just as stupid" as me was no excuse... I really couldn't argue.

 

The moral of the story? Don't trust anyone but yourself when it comes to making decisions about where to land. Just because a bunch of "professionals" are standing there with their chainsaws waiting to get picked up on a "prepared" pad doesn't mean it's safe. You can generally speed up the reccee process when dealing with so-called certified or approved pads, but be careful always...

 

HV

[Firehawk]

I have had a chance to fly in both the U.S and Canada on fires, Canada has alot to learn from the U.S in many areas of fires, giving the pilots actual weights on sling loads and crews.

Why has this not happened yet in Canada? Is it really that hard?

I guess as long as nobody crashes and nobody gets killed while flying a over weight aircraft everything in fine.

[mtnhopper]

Firehawk, What ya sayin

[Skids Up]

I have had a chance to fly in both the U.S and Canada on fires, Canada has alot to learn from the U.S in many areas of fires, giving the pilots actual weights on sling loads and crews.

Why has this not happened yet in Canada? Is it really that hard?

I've wondered about this as well. Why can't it be done here? We talk a good deal about safety, but are sometimes slow to put our money where our mouth is.

 

I was the fifth machine in a row to land on one of the pads.

 

Why do we have the intense desire to "do it at any cost"? Nobody, (including myself) wants to be the wussy, so we will keep going into places that we might not land at if it was a different place in time.

 

It's too bad that we don't support each other more by refusing to use unsafe / unsuitable pads, instead of blindly following the pack.

 

It's kind of like the sled dogs that were nose to tail in the blinding snowstorm, head down and plodding along. One turned to the following and said, "It's a *****, ain't it?"

 

He replied, "It'd better be!"

 

We keep following, sometimes with no clear idea of who's leading....

[Helilog56]

I've wondered about this as well. Why can't it be done here? We talk a good deal about safety, but are sometimes slow to put our money where our mouth is.

Why do we have the intense desire to "do it at any cost"? Nobody, (including myself) wants to be the wussy, so we will keep going into places that we might not land at if it was a different place in time.

 

It's too bad that we don't support each other more by refusing to use unsafe / unsuitable pads, instead of blindly following the pack.

 

It's kind of like the sled dogs that were nose to tail in the blinding snowstorm, head down and plodding along. One turned to the following and said, "It's a *****, ain't it?"

 

He replied, "It'd better be!"

 

We keep following, sometimes with no clear idea of who's leading....

 

"Who" is leading????.... In this world, it better be "you".....You want to know what a real "wussy" is.... someone who does not have the common sense to learn to say, "no" (with good reason, of course)....Skids Up, with all due respect, read carefully what you posted....you will find a lot of wisdom there, if you read it from the right perspective.....Then you, and many others (including myself), will find why it does "not" have to be, "done at any cost".....

[Reddog]

And what about when buddy refuses the pad and then everyone else lines up to prove that they are so much better than buddy by doing what he wouldn't instead of accepting that buddy actually might know what he is talking about and supporting his decision.

[Skids Up]

Skids Up, with all due respect, read carefully what you posted....you will find a lot of wisdom there, if you read it from the right perspective.....

Helilog56

 

I had hoped that it was coming from the right perpective?!, but I think REDDOG hit it pretty much on the head.

 

And what about when buddy refuses the pad and then everyone else lines up to prove that they are so much better than buddy by doing what he wouldn't instead of accepting that buddy actually might know what he is talking about and supporting his decision.

 

28 years have shown me that there is always someone that "will use it", or "will leave /arrive in marginal weather", or is just willing to show up the next guy.

 

I was on a fire last year on IA support, when the machines lined up for crew change were leaving in the fog, that was so thick that you could barley see across the runway, (remote strip - no control) because the far end only 3000 feet away, was in the clear. One went, then everyone had to follow. Can't let you get any more hours than me, right??? :boff:

 

I was glad I was on IA and not part of the pack. Everyone made it fine, no casulities, but why do we feel the need to go, when waiting another 15 - 30 minutes, will provide at least VFR minimuns in a short bit.

 

The other part of this, is where is forestry and their safety issues. Do they just happen to ask the one in the group that is "better" than the rest, or the one that won't say no, and then force everyone else.

 

Granted, we all have the right, and should have the ability, to say No, but when you look over your shoulder, not even your own, will usually back you up... :down:

[Helilog56]

And what about when buddy refuses the pad and then everyone else lines up to prove that they are so much better than buddy by doing what he wouldn't instead of accepting that buddy actually might know what he is talking about and supporting his decision.

Good Point....but were those other pilots 10,000 hr+ mountain experienced guys? Does their recurrent training include extensive pad training, longline, bucketing, etc., etc.? Does your company provide the necessary training, and guidelines/standards for your decision making? How well does your company support your decisions when it comes to safety?

Flying out into 3000 ft vis as Skids Up pointed out is just outright "stupid". As a many year management type, if i found or heard any of our flight crew were doing such.....grounds for termination, (if the facts were such). Decisions made by pilots in regards to safety are a "priority"....it should be the standard, not the exception. And you are exactly right Skids Up....why not wait? ....... Do "not" let the actions of others, influence your decisions....