# Medical helicopter crash in STL



## NomadicMedic (Mar 7, 2015)

Pilot was killed when ARCH medical helo crashed. No medical crew or patient on board. 

http://www.ksdk.com/story/news/2015/03/07/one-dead-after-medical-helicopter-crash/24552157/


----------



## Angel (Mar 7, 2015)

Another single engined helicopter?


----------



## CANMAN (Mar 7, 2015)

Looks like they were in an EC-130 which yes is a single engine airframe, although it has a crap-ton of power. I know they also used to have BK117's but think they were phased out with the new 130's......... You will not catch me in a single engine aircraft. Curious to see what the prelim cause comes out as. In looking at the picture there is a pretty significant chunk of concrete missing from part of the structure so I am wonder if he had a catastrophic mechanical failure while on final approach into the hospital pad.


----------



## SandpitMedic (Mar 9, 2015)

RIP

Dual engine should be the CAMTS mandatory. This has got to be one of the most dangerous jobs in our industry. More of these birds go down than EMS/FD has fatalities per annum.


----------



## CANMAN (Mar 9, 2015)

I agree man, but unfortunately there are too many for profit companies out there that are trending away from twins in favor of cheaper singles. That's where I believe the provider can make a decision is their life worth a career. I picked absolutely hell no, and every ship in my program is a twin, all less then 10 years old, with TCAS, TWAS, SPIFR, dual autopilots, radar altimeters, and each crew member has NVG's. No job is worth dying for. 

I worry about dying in a car accident because of idiots drivers WAY more then I do about my safety at work. If I was working in the Midwest at a single engine air medical provider, that though would change without a doubt. 

Until the industry picks safety over profit this will we see this sadly continue....


----------



## Tigger (Mar 10, 2015)

Not a single provider operates a twin engined helicopter in Colorado (outside of the military). The crews here tell me that most of the current airframes suitable for airmedical do not perform well enough altitude to be useful or are just far to unwieldy. Up until a few years ago one hospital operated a 412 but it was deemed to be too large and expensive to operate, and now they're in an Astar, like most everyone else in the state. 

Unlike much of the US, HEMS is actually useful out here so I don't really know what to make of all this.


----------



## Carlos Danger (Mar 10, 2015)

Twins are no safer than singles.


----------



## CANMAN (Mar 10, 2015)

Remi said:


> Twins are no safer than singles.



I know your a guy who is all about statistics, but the whole "twins are no safer statistically" argument is crap. The last lol at the trends was years ago to my knowledge and there certainly hasn't been anything recently that I know of, since the major spike in single engine airframes. I would bet if you ran a study tomorrow and looked back over the past 5 years you would see that statistically twins are much safer. Spend 10 minutes looking at the NTSB crash records for that timeframe and tell me what the major of the crashes have been, you guessed it, single engine airframes, mostly A-Stars... Granted there is more of them out flying now, but I think the numbers are off and haven't been updated in a while...

Years ago our program had an incident while landing at their base, that had they not been in a twin it would have been 3 fatalities. While on final to their base, which was located on a pier extending into the inner harbor, they lost an engine. They were able to wave off the landing, take the second to max power, and safely perform a run on landing. Had it had been a single they would have plunged into the drink in the month of Feb and been gone before help ever showed up. 

So if said scenario saved three lives of friends/co workers over the course of 5 years you can take the statistics and toss them. 

End of the day there are people on each side of the argument, and they are entitled to their opinion, however most of those people work for single engine programs and that's what they tell themselves so they can sleep at night and feel safe. You might be able to perfectly balance a car on three wheels and have it work just fine, buy why not just add a forth wheels...? 

Tigger you said it in your post, "deemed it too large and TOO EXPENSIVE". The foot print of an EC135 and say a 130 are almost identical so size is a non issue... If performed is a factor and superior in a single then why isn't the military or almost every single program who does SAR in singles...? All lip service. Cost is the factor, and like I said until programs continue to put a price on lives, more will die. 

REMI I like the fact that IFR isn't an emergency to us on a routine basis, it does become an emergency in a single. The list of pluses can go on and on but at the end of the day people are going to have their own thoughts about the situation. That's fine, but given a choice I would bet the majority of providers in the industry would prefer a twin for multiple factors if their program game them a choice. One of the major issues is too many people are willing to over look red flags in the safety arena of certain programs, just so they can get the job, then wear their flight suit to the grocery store when they get off. I am not one of those people...


----------



## Carlos Danger (Mar 10, 2015)

CANMAN said:


> I know your a guy who is all about statistics, but the whole "twins are no safer statistically" argument is crap. The last lol at the trends was years ago to my knowledge and there certainly hasn't been anything recently that I know of, since the major spike in single engine airframes. I would bet if you ran a study tomorrow and looked back over the past 5 years you would see that statistically twins are much safer. Spend 10 minutes looking at the NTSB crash records for that timeframe and tell me what the major of the crashes have been, you guessed it, single engine airframes, mostly A-Stars... Granted there is more of them out flying now, but I think the numbers are off and haven't been updated in a while...
> 
> Years ago our program had an incident while landing at their base, that had they not been in a twin it would have been 3 fatalities. While on final to their base, which was located on a pier extending into the inner harbor, they lost an engine. They were able to wave off the landing, take the second to max power, and safely perform a run on landing. Had it had been a single they would have plunged into the drink in the month of Feb and been gone before help ever showed up.
> 
> So if said scenario saved three lives of friends/co workers over the course of 5 years you can take the statistics and toss them.



It's not crap, and if you are going to assert that it is, then the onus is on you to substantiate that claim. 

You have to remember that single-engines are _much_ more common than twins in general aviation, and probably account for several times the annual flight hours that twins do. So simply scrolling through NTSB crash records means nothing. Neither do isolated anecdotal experiences.



CANMAN said:


> End of the day there are people on each side of the argument, and they are entitled to their opinion, however most of those people work for single engine programs and that's what they tell themselves so they can sleep at night and feel safe.



I flew for 12 years and never once worked in a single. So that has nothing do with my opinion. 

On the contrary, I think programs that fly twins tend to incorrectly use that fact as both a marketing tool and a reassurance to their med crew members who simply don't know any different.



CANMAN said:


> If performed is a factor and superior in a single then why isn't the military or almost every single program who does SAR in singles...? All lip service. Cost is the factor, and like I said until programs continue to put a price on lives, more will die.



You do realize that the US military used singles widely - with great success - until relatively recently (and many other nations still do), and that some of those old singles are still regarded as some of the safest and most durable helicopters?  

For the most part, military helicopters are simply too large to be adequately powered by a single.


----------



## CANMAN (Mar 10, 2015)

I acknowledge in my first post there are more singles flying in the industry. I also have been doing this long enough to form my own opinions and my employer doesn't use facts to reassure me anything. I researched and picked where I wanted to work based off many factors. I already said I feel like the statistics haven't been updated or looked at in sometime and this is my opinion, so I am not going to substantiate anything, you have your opinion and again I have mine. If you want to go off statistics, and disregard the issue that single engine crashes by far are the majority in the last few years, regardless of how many are out there flying then go ahead. Your entitled to that. I see that as troubling. Toyota sells a lot of cars, doesn't mean when their gas pedals were sticking and killing people I was eager to go buy one. That's the cool thing about being individuals, we all are able to make our own decisions, and how we go about that may differ. 
Cheers


----------



## Tigger (Mar 10, 2015)

CANMAN said:


> Tigger you said it in your post, "deemed it too large and TOO EXPENSIVE". The foot print of an EC135 and say a 130 are almost identical so size is a non issue... If performed is a factor and superior in a single then why isn't the military or almost every single program who does SAR in singles...? All lip service. Cost is the factor, and like I said until programs continue to put a price on lives, more will die.



Well it probably is very expensive to operate a 412. But they are apparently one of the few aircraft that can perform at said altitude, I guess a 135 will not cut it out here apparently.


----------



## Carlos Danger (Mar 10, 2015)

CANMAN said:


> I acknowledge in my first post there are more singles flying in the industry. I also have been doing this long enough to form my own opinions and my employer doesn't use facts to reassure me anything. I researched and picked where I wanted to work based off many factors. I already said I feel like the statistics haven't been updated or looked at in sometime and this is my opinion, so I am not going to substantiate anything, you have your opinion and again I have mine. If you want to go off statistics, and disregard the issue that single engine crashes by far are the majority in the last few years, regardless of how many are out there flying then go ahead. Your entitled to that. I see that as troubling. Toyota sells a lot of cars, doesn't mean when their gas pedals were sticking and killing people I was eager to go buy one. That's the cool thing about being individuals, we all are able to make our own decisions, and how we go about that may differ.
> Cheers



Of course everyone is entitled to their own point of view. But not to their own "facts". So it's fine to say "I think twins are better than singles", but it's a very different thing to say "twins ARE safer than singles" as a statement of fact.

If someone were to do a detailed statistical analysis, maybe you'd be proven right......maybe twins _are_ statistically safer these days. I seriously doubt that's the case, but who knows....it certainly wouldn't be the first time I've been wrong.

The point is that it's impossible to come to a conclusion by casually browsing the NTSB database, or by listening to anecdotes, or by pointing out that the US military currently only uses twins.

Not only do I doubt that there is any good evidence anywhere that twins are safer, but more importantly, some really excellent HEMS, LE, GA, and SAR programs use singles without any issue. It certainly isn't just the shady, lets-do-everything-as-cheap-as-possible-who-cares-about-safety types of operations that use singles. With that in mind, I just don't think it's fair to essentially publicly characterize a large swath of both the HEMS and general aviation industry as being inferior, without some solid basis.


----------



## Merck (Mar 11, 2015)

Well, my opinion (to keep Remi happy, apparently) is that a twin-engine machine is safer.  Granted I can't quote great stats and that's for a couple of reasons.  The first is that I don't care enough to look - I'm happy to rely on the opinions of people I trust and know are more well-versed in the subject than I.  The second reason is that I'm happy to go with my gut on this.  We fly FW and RW and while I haven't had an engine failure in the RW, I have in the FW and I was pretty please at that point that I was in a KingAir 350 instead of a Pilatus.  The same would hold true for the helicopter, I suppose (S76 C+, if anyone cares).  

As well, there are a lot of places we aren't allowed to land with a single-engine machine so it wouldn't really suit our program.  

I actually have the same arguments for single vs. dual pilots as well...An engine failure might be bad, but a pilot failure is probably more so...


----------



## VFlutter (Mar 11, 2015)

Sad news


----------



## Carlos Danger (Mar 11, 2015)

Merck said:


> Well, my opinion (*to keep Remi happy, apparently*) is that a twin-engine machine is safer.  Granted I can't quote great stats and that's for a couple of reasons.  The first is that I don't care enough to look - I'm happy to rely on the opinions of people I trust and know are more well-versed in the subject than I.  The second reason is that I'm happy to go with my gut on this.  We fly FW and RW and while I haven't had an engine failure in the RW, I have in the FW and I was pretty please at that point that I was in a KingAir 350 instead of a Pilatus.  The same would hold true for the helicopter, I suppose (S76 C+, if anyone cares).



I'm sorry if you guys can't see the importance of clearly delineating the difference between fact & opinion when your audience is primarily those who don't know enough about the issue at hand to be able to differentiate the two, yet potentially _are_ in a position to use that information in their decision making.


----------



## MonkeyArrow (Mar 11, 2015)

Remi said:


> I'm sorry if you guys can't see the importance of clearly delineating the difference between fact & opinion when your audience is primarily those who don't know enough about the issue at hand to be able to differentiate the two, yet potentially _are_ in a position to use that information in their decision making.


Not trying to be an ***, but just wondering, do you change the font size of your replies on purpose to emphasize certain things?


----------



## Carlos Danger (Mar 11, 2015)

MonkeyArrow said:


> Not trying to be an ***, but just wondering, do you change the font size of your replies on purpose to emphasize certain things?



No. The font size often changes itself when I type on my computer on this forum. Sometimes I change it back, sometimes I don't bother.


----------



## CANMAN (Mar 12, 2015)

Remi said:


> I'm sorry if you guys can't see the importance of clearly delineating the difference between fact & opinion when your audience is primarily those who don't know enough about the issue at hand to be able to differentiate the two, yet potentially _are_ in a position to use that information in their decision making.



Dude try as I may I can't understand you sometimes. Merck started his posted off with his statement is merely his opinion. What more do you want? In previous posts you have acknowledge that people are entitled to such. So if thats the case let people do just that and have their opinion. Believe it or not everything in life doesn't have to be backed up with statistics and I don't care what the old study/percentages you are referencing shows when there are some common sense items that I take into account to form MY OPINION..... I don't need a percentage, which is years old, and doesn't take into account the recent, and huge spike in mom and pop air medical vendors plopping down single engine A-star bases all over town to tell me that a lot of the crashes that have recently occurred have been due to single engine NON-IFR aircraft flying into IFR weather and crashing, to justify that a twin engine IFR capable aircraft is better. It's common sense, and a FACT that given the same scenario, in my dual engine IFR capable aircraft, we would file a flight plan, go IFR as usual, and likely have a different outcome. IFR is "Instrument flight rules" or margin weather/ceilings for "those who don't know enough about the issue at hand yet are in a position to use my information to make their decision". 

I have acknowledge countless times, on countless threads, your training, knowledge, and intelligence, and can't help but feel like your extremely pompous in some of your replies. Not everyone bases every decision or opinion they may form based off research and statistics all the time, and thats ok. Sometimes common sense prevails and I am done wasting my time trying to have you understand that.


----------



## Carlos Danger (Mar 12, 2015)

CANMAN said:


> Dude try as I may I can't understand you sometimes. Merck started his posted off with his statement is merely his opinion. What more do you want? In previous posts you have acknowledge that people are entitled to such. So if thats the case let people do just that and have their opinion. Believe it or not everything in life doesn't have to be backed up with statistics and I don't care what the old study/percentages you are referencing shows when there are some common sense items that I take into account to form MY OPINION..... I don't need a percentage, which is years old, and doesn't take into account the recent, and huge spike in mom and pop air medical vendors plopping down single engine A-star bases all over town to tell me that a lot of the crashes that have recently occurred have been due to single engine NON-IFR aircraft flying into IFR weather and crashing, to justify that a twin engine IFR capable aircraft is better. It's common sense, and a FACT that given the same scenario, in my dual engine IFR capable aircraft, we would file a flight plan, go IFR as usual, and likely have a different outcome. IFR is "Instrument flight rules" or margin weather/ceilings for "those who don't know enough about the issue at hand yet are in a position to use my information to make their decision".
> 
> I have acknowledge countless times, on countless threads, your training, knowledge, and intelligence, and can't help but feel like your extremely pompous in some of your replies. Not everyone bases every decision or opinion they may form based off research and statistics all the time, and thats ok. Sometimes common sense prevails and *I am done wasting my time trying to have you understand that.*



My reply to Merck was directed squarely at his sarcastic reference to my post. I didn't criticize his opinion on twins vs. singles at all, or even comment on anything else that he wrote, for that matter.

I'm sorry that you don't like being challenged when you present an opinion as though it is a fact. And it's too bad that you misinterpret (or mischaracterize, more likely, but I can't know for sure) those challenges as me thinking that individuals aren't entitled to personal viewpoints. That is untrue, and I don't think anything I wrote here provides evidence for that accusation.

Look back over this thread, and read what I wrote. I didn't criticize your opinion, or anyone else's. What I criticized was the fact that you presented your opinion (that twins are safer than singles) as fact.

Just like your family practice guy owes it to you to explain why he recommends a certain hypertension treatment regimen over the other options, others who are recognized as experts in their field also have a responsibility to make it clear in their commentary or recommendations why they believe certain things. I think that's especially true when it comes to controversial topics such as HEMS.



​


----------



## CANMAN (Mar 13, 2015)

I think I made it very clear in my commentary and recommendations of why I believe twins are safer in the previous posts. From safety systems to ability to fly safely in some IFR/IMC conditions vs. it being an emergency like in a single engine airframe. I don't know what more I need to point out, it's like you almost didn't even read any of the benefits I posted. 

BTW another single engine A-Star crash this morning in the mid-west....
http://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/medical-helicopter-crashes-three-aboard-oklahoma-n322741


----------



## triemal04 (Mar 13, 2015)

So Remi, just to be clear, you think that a single engine helicopter is just as safe as a twin engine and appropriate for a medical transport?


----------



## CANMAN (Mar 13, 2015)

triemal his point is there is old statistical data, which I believe is over 4 years old now, which compared single engine vs. dual engine aircraft crashes and found it to be like 51% vs. 49% so no real statistical backing to prove that they are indeed safer, and thats what he's saying.

My point is the data is old, there has been a huge surge not only in the number of bases and single engine aircraft that have turned up over the past few years unfortunately, but also ALOT of programs who maybe had a dual engine aircraft switching to a single. It seems like, based off looking at the recent (within 3- 4 year timespan) that almost every crash has involved a single engine aircraft, and IN MY OPINION a lot of them have been due to getting into weather scenarios which a single engine aircraft isn't rated for, however a dual engine aircraft might have a better/different outcome based off pilot training in recovery from those situations and features like dual autopilots etc, as I described earlier.

So yes he is saying there is nothing to prove they are safer, and I am saying let's utilize common sense here and look at the recent trends, accidents, causes, and then say would the same situation/crash happened in a twin. For some of the scenarios it wouldn't make a difference, but it is my absolute belief that a twin engine IFR rated aircraft could have prevents some of the recent incidents.

In talking to a friend and co-worker this morning about the most recent crash (today's crash involving a single engine A-Star) he put it perfectly by saying "it's 99% about IMC/IFR abilities and often only 1% mechanical, however I would rather have 2 engines and never need the safety margin it then have 1 on the day you do".

European HEMS models laugh at us when it comes to crash rates and statistics, you know why, because they are all in dual engine platforms capable of IFR flight, with two pilots, and every safety system available.


----------



## SeeNoMore (Mar 14, 2015)

I am inclined to agree with Remi. To be sure everyone has the right to hold and state personal preferences. I think we also need to keep good data at the forefront of any debates on HEMS safety. My understanding is that there is no statistical correlation between twin engine aircraft and fewer accidents (when relevant factors are accounted for). If twin engines are safer, that is important information. But we can't use it effectively unless it is backed up by good science. That is just the way the world works.  More generally,   no matter which airframe you find yourself in I think safety is largely influenced by the quality of maintenance, the experience and skill level of pilots, a commitment on the part of the program to side with Pilots / Crews who make good decisions regarding weather, a program that is open to hearing concerns and criticisms.   I fly with a program that uses both single and twin engine aircraft just for perspective.   But just to be clear I am not trying to say you don't have the right to express your beliefs, I just don't think evidence based on personal experience or opinion is very compelling.


----------



## Angel (Mar 15, 2015)

Some people just like to argue....


----------

