Click here to close
New Message Alert
List Entire Thread
Msg ID: 2554081 Industry Adjustment  +14/-6     
Author:Crusty.
2/3/2019 12:26:27 AM

Never thought I’d think like this but here goes.  HHA Dual pilot flown IFR Twins only!  I think about the last several accidents, and believe they would have been avoided if they were dual pilot.  At least the ones I’m informed about.  Reduce the total # of HAA bases and require the above.  Hit me!!



Return-To-Index  
 
Msg ID: 2554088 Industry Adjustment  +6/-0     
Author:But
2/3/2019 1:36:56 AM

Reply to: 2554081

That would get in the way of our obscene profits!

signed: Management 



Return-To-Index  
 
Msg ID: 2554090 Industry Adjustment  +6/-0     
Author:Answer
2/3/2019 4:42:24 AM

Reply to: 2554081

Wishful thinking, it'll never happen...



Return-To-Index  
 
Msg ID: 2554092 attaboy +0/-9     
Author:Anonymous
2/3/2019 6:37:38 AM

Reply to: 2554081

what u r arguing for is the government model, like canada. a few really well equipped and capable aircraft scattered around the country for medical transports, when approved by competent authority. which means very few. of course, very few would have to be flown anywhere, since all the hospitals would be pretty much do-anything facilities, because everything is supported by tax money, with little or no costs to the patient. as you point out, this would be a great system. i’m all for it. glad to see another guy on here that recognizes the benefits of socialism. 



Return-To-Index  
 
Msg ID: 2554095 Industry Adjustment  +11/-1     
Author:SPIFR guy
2/3/2019 7:36:47 AM

Reply to: 2554081

Again... If you flew SPIFR you'd know two pilots aren't required. How many SPIFR aircraft have gone down in HAA?

SPIFR is the SAFEST mode of travel PERIOD. You're not pushing minimums, planned fuel, IFR altitudes, ATC handling, alternates, etc. 

Two pilots, crew, equipment, etc. = no fuel load, no alternate, (can't get there) = no flight.



Return-To-Index  
 
Msg ID: 2554097 Industry Adjustment  +1/-1     
Author:Anonymous
2/3/2019 7:53:23 AM

Reply to: 2554095

oh i agree with what u say. but the original guy's error is forgetting that we live in a capitalist society. for all but a very few operations (government, either civil or military), everything has to be on a paying basis.

that's the reason for all the little vfr ships, and for what few we have, ifr on an spifr basis. now there are exceptions, like for the big hospital contracts. yes, they are "commercial" but don't forget, they are heavily subsidized by the hospital.

in short it's just a law of mathematics that, unless there's some subsidy, either from the overlying concern losing money to subsidize it, or from the government subsidizing it through tax money, the operation just won'd fly. pun intended.

what these dreamers overlook is that if we went to this model, about 80% of the haa helicopters would go away. now this is not necessarily a bad thing. even under our current model ('murica!!), at least half of the haa helicopters now in business could go away, and the general public and the requesting agencies (hospitals, ems) would never know the difference.

socialism has benefits, and also costs. surprise? not. everything under the sun is the same.

when you look at a socialized system, yes, you have better quality and lower costs to the patients...in most cases, no direct costs...the overall cost of the system is borne by a little bit of tax money from every man jack in the citizenry. like the rega system in switzerland...every taxpayer is assessed a little fee every year and the system is fully funded and if you have to be flown, it's "free."

we don't think that way in 'murica. in our system, it's every man for himself and if you are one of the unlucky few outside of medicare coverage (socialism again, and i can say personally, thank god for it) that has to be flown, well, expect a mega-bill.

the guys calling for a socialist model never stop to think that hundreds and thousands of jobs would go away, and this segment of general aviation, which we have in the good ol' u.s. of a., would go away also. as an aside, this is why there's little or no general aviation in the rest of the world...no taxpayer subsidy of a general aviation system, so *all* the costs of operating non-airline flying...the bugsmashers, the crop-dusters, the charter planes, haa, gom, and such, have to be borne directly by the operator. here in america you pretty much have to be a millionaire to operate a private aircraft yourself as it is...overseas, only the really very very rich can afford one.

it's so true, nothing is free.



Return-To-Index  
 
Msg ID: 2554134 Industry Adjustment  +3/-1     
Author:SPIFR guy
2/3/2019 11:53:40 AM

Reply to: 2554097

I agree with most of your post, however the "socialist med model" is incorrect. Look at Canada for example, (have relatives there) They wait months for procedures and if critical, they head for the U.S. to get it done. The Medical community has no incentive ( profit, bonus or premium pay for skills) to be quick or efficient. Obama tried to start shifting to a socialized med system and the young and healthy wanted no part in the cost sharing. Not smart to realize that in the future, just like Social Security they will become the generation that will use it.

One size doesn't fit all medically. 

HAA on the other hand is about to have a really rude awakening as more states pass legislation capping how much operators can gouge a patient.



Return-To-Index  
 
Msg ID: 2554163 Capitalism isn't the problem (NT) +0/-0     
Author:Sheesh.
2/3/2019 3:28:21 PM

Reply to: 2554097


Return-To-Index  
 
Msg ID: 2554113 Industry Adjustment  +7/-0     
Author:Anonymous
2/3/2019 9:18:03 AM

Reply to: 2554095

This is what really irritates me. Fantastic modern machines with the capability to do almost anything they’re needed to autopilot multiengine backups for the backups and redundancies for safety of flight, but I can only carry an hour of fuel because the nurse and medic are both 250lbs and the average male patient weight seems to be 400lbs, so I’m constantly worrying about fuel. I can be comfortable and confident going inadvertent but I better shoot that approach as fast as possible and can’t even consider going missed or an alternate because I don’t have the fuel. 

Thats your pressure to fly and when you get behind the aircraft and start skipping steps or making small mistakes, because youre so concerned about fuel that you’re rushed to get to the hospital and rushed to get fuel before any warning lights come on.



Return-To-Index  
 
Msg ID: 2554121 Industry Adjustment  +0/-0     
Author:So
2/3/2019 10:07:09 AM

Reply to: 2554113

what's your point?



Return-To-Index  
 
Msg ID: 2554189 Industry Adjustment  +2/-0     
Author:Anonymous
2/3/2019 5:46:00 PM

Reply to: 2554121

What I’m saying is most accidents in HAA are inadvertent imc. You can train and practice to shoot an ils in a controlled environment where you prepare for it or are safely in a simulator, but I can imagine the added stress added to the maneuver due to minimal fuel because there are 3 people in the back with a combined weight of 900lbs. If I went inadvertent and instead had that 900lbs in the fuel tank, I would feel more comfortable slowing down and doing it right.



Return-To-Index  
 
Msg ID: 2554221 Industry Adjustment  +1/-1     
Author:Capt Easy
2/3/2019 10:56:50 PM

Reply to: 2554189

I can be comfortable and confident going inadvertent but I better shoot that approach as fast as possible and can’t even consider going missed or an alternate because I don’t have the fuel. 

You're doing it wrong.

If IMC is a possibility, but you really don't have the fuel if you do need to go IFR, then why are you taking the flight?

What I tell our ops center:

1. That I don't have the fuel for IFR and I may only be able to fly the patient so far before they need to continue by ground (or maybe another aircraft).

2. I can get the med crew to the patient, but they will have to continue from there by ground.

3. I decline the flight for weather.

 



Return-To-Index  
 
Msg ID: 2554296 Something to add... +0/-0     
Author:Capt Easy
2/4/2019 12:38:21 PM

Reply to: 2554221

I should also add to my post above:

If I know that IFR might be a possibility, I will also tell our ops center:

 IFR is a possibility, so I will either:

         a. put on extra fuel before departing

         b. drop off the med crew at the patient and go get fuel.

I have also been in the position where I have added fuel before departing and then found that the patient weighed so much that I could not take them with enough fuel to go IFR. Then I discuss with our ops folks items 1 and 2 from my post above.

Another option, and certainly not optimal, is to stop en route and put on more fuel with the patient on board, though not every program may allow this.



Return-To-Index  
 
Msg ID: 2554376 Industry Adjustment  +0/-2     
Author:spifr guy
2/4/2019 11:51:48 PM

Reply to: 2554221

You sound like a lazy sissy.  

 

I accept if I can do it legally and safely.  If that means I file IFR to an intermittent destination for fuel, fine.  I’ll shoot the ils, land and refuel.  Takeoff again IFR to the destination.  So sick of this “we are trying too hard” mentality.  You‘re just lazy.  



Return-To-Index  
 
Msg ID: 2554390 Who are you replying to? (NT) +0/-0     
Author:Capt Easy
2/5/2019 7:54:13 AM

Reply to: 2554376


Return-To-Index  
 
Msg ID: 2554679 Industry Adjustment  +0/-0     
Author:My Op...
2/7/2019 8:30:19 AM

Reply to: 2554221

The PIC plans round trip to get the aircraft back home.  If we need fuel for the return leg[s], we will get it at the referring facilities closest airport.

Mixing and matching modes of transport generally extends the time for a higher level of care for the patient.  It may be more prudent to just send them by ground from the get go, if they have to be transferred to a ground unit because the aircraft can't get them to the receiving facility. 

Respectfully



Return-To-Index  
 
Msg ID: 2554129 Industry Adjustment (NT) +0/-0     
Author:Lifestar Bradford PA
2/3/2019 11:16:30 AM

Reply to: 2554095


Return-To-Index  
 
Msg ID: 2554231 Industry Adjustment  +0/-0     
Author:what about it?
2/4/2019 3:01:14 AM

Reply to: 2554129

Guy with no IFR experience puts the aircraft below Vmini and shuts the the auto pilot off, so we should all fly 206s because one person cant operate the autopilot.



Return-To-Index  
 
Msg ID: 2554225 Industry Adjustment  +0/-3     
Author:Stats
2/4/2019 1:57:02 AM

Reply to: 2554095
Where's your stats behind the claim SPIFR is the SAFEST? How much SPIFR HAA is flown yearly? Second pilot reduces fuel load to the point of being non operational? Maybe in some Ac. No numbers realistically equals no argument. Not saying you're wrong Just baseless without numbers.


Return-To-Index  
 
Msg ID: 2554132 Industry Adjustment  +0/-2     
Author:Double the amount o you on here
2/3/2019 11:36:35 AM

Reply to: 2554081
whining about your crappy jobs,...sounds great!


Return-To-Index  
 
Msg ID: 2554374 Industry Adjustment  +3/-1     
Author:Spifr guy
2/4/2019 11:47:35 PM

Reply to: 2554081

Dual pilot?  You must be military and unable to do your job without someone holding your hand along the way.  

 

Ive seen more issues with two pilots than one.  Flying a helicopter single pilot IFR is not new, it’s not hard.  You can’t teach people good decision making, sadly.  Stupid people will crash aircraft no matter how capable it is.  

 

BUT I do believe there is no substitute for actual helicopter IFR experience.  Everyone is afraid to commit to IMC.  For no good reason other than the fact that they haven’t done it.  

 

 



Return-To-Index  
 
Msg ID: 2554388 Industry Adjustment  +0/-0     
Author:Capt Easy
2/5/2019 7:42:48 AM

Reply to: 2554374

Dual pilot?  You must be military and unable to do your job without someone holding your hand along the way.  

Actually, most people calling for dual pilot for HEMS are those without enough experience to really be able to do the job. Not to make this a mil vs civ thing, but, by far, the pilots who come in with some decent IFR experience come from the military. I work with a couple of civilian trained pilots who do well with IFR, but they were also fortunate to have had previous jobs where they were able to get IFR experience.

When the job market was tight, there was also a call for dual pilot for HEMS. However, the vast majority of those were people with low time and not enough experience to get a job in HEMS. The dual pilot thing was seen by some as a means to get into HEMS and hopefully get the experience they need. The reality is that they would have been copilots for a loooong time, and paid a lot less than they were hoping for.

 

Ive seen more issues with two pilots than one.  

Dual pilot is not a panacea. People who still call for it don't really think it through.

 

 You can’t teach people good decision making, sadly.  

 I disagree completely.

 

BUT I do believe there is no substitute for actual helicopter IFR experience.  Everyone is afraid to commit to IMC.  For no good reason other than the fact that they haven’t done it.

I agree. The pilots who have the IFR experience will readily go IFR. Unfortunately, too many places want to be IFR programs, but then can't attract experienced pilots, so they hire people with little (or even no) IFR experience.

 

 



Return-To-Index  
 
Msg ID: 2554486 Industry Adjustment  +0/-0     
Author:Good thinking.
2/5/2019 5:54:00 PM

Reply to: 2554081

Absolutely every solution offerred over the past decades would help, and some have been implemented and contributed to saves from adverse situations.  As more tech gets incoporated the further we push our nose in to getting flights done, thus, always on the edge, or over it.  

Airline friends think we're out of our minds doing this in ancient VFR junk single pilot, taking off at a moments notice to gosh knows where, with a complement of mouth-waggling medical people contributing little to the real safety equation.  Usually they're full of all the same irrelevant questions and chatter.  I'd much prefer they just STFU.

Answer to the predicament?  Doctors slow down on utilizing a potentially unstable option.  Robotics, more dependence on tele-medicine and consultation, and on and on. 

Twin engine IFR with two pilots and reasonable launch time frames would help.

 



Return-To-Index  
 
Msg ID: 2555359 Industry Adjustment  +0/-0     
Author:It'll literally
2/11/2019 2:20:03 PM

Reply to: 2554081

take a change in law or a direct Act of Congress - not going to happen.



Return-To-Index