# Single Engine Safety



## DPM (Feb 2, 2017)

I found an interesting article about single engine HEMS operations and human factors. Worth a read. 

http://helicopterems.blogspot.co.uk/2015/12/hoisted-on-my-own-petard.html?m=1


----------



## VentMonkey (Feb 2, 2017)

This is nothing new to the HEMS community, and is very much a "hot button" issue with some providers swearing that IFR rated twin engine programs are the only way to go allowing at least the reaction time to look for a safe landing (in theory) once you have an engine failure. His paramedic did ask a valid question, and it was neat he turned it into an article.

My program is a single engine VFR program, and this actually seems to be the trend with majority of most North American HEMS operations. Cost factors and flight plans are what I hear cited most often in regards to the practicality of a single engine VFR program vs. the costliness of an IFR program. I'm still pretty new to the flight aspect itself, but as time goes by more and more makes sense, or it doesn't...and we don't go.

Thanks for posting it. It definitely offers insight for anyone looking to jump blindly into HEMS (no pun intended). Maybe @CANMAN will make a cameo regarding the article, he's a well seasoned flight guy.


----------



## DesertMedic66 (Feb 2, 2017)

VentMonkey said:


> This is nothing new to the HEMS community, and is very much a "hot button" issue with some providers swearing that IFR rated twin engine programs are the only way to go allowing at least the reaction time to look for a safe landing (in theory) once you have an engine failure. His paramedic did ask a valid question, and it was neat he turned it into an article.
> 
> My program is a single engine VFR program, and this actually seems to be the trend with majority of most North American HEMS operations. Cost factors and flight plans are what I hear cited most often in regards to the practicality of a single engine VFR program vs. the costliness of an IFR program. I'm still pretty new to the flight aspect itself, but as time goes by more and more makes sense, or it doesn't...and we don't go.
> 
> Thanks for posting it. It definitely offers insight for anyone looking to jump blindly into HEMS (no pun intended). Maybe @CANMAN will make a cameo regarding the article, he's a well seasoned flight guy.


You guys are VFR? I figured the majority would be IFR (at least they are down here).


----------



## VentMonkey (Feb 2, 2017)

DesertMedic66 said:


> You guys are VFR? I figured the majority would be IFR (at least they are down here).


Majority being all of REACH and Mercy Air's SoCal ops?


----------



## DPM (Feb 2, 2017)

My main reason for posting was the A-star, which seems like the most common aircraft out there. I work two places, and one is a police helicopter with a secondary medical mission. I trust to pilots, and they know the response area intimately, but it looks like cost has led to single engine IFR, which I'm not thrilled about.


----------



## DesertMedic66 (Feb 2, 2017)

VentMonkey said:


> Majority being all of REACH and Mercy Air's SoCal ops?


Yeah haha. The ones that respond to our area (2-3 difference Mercy airs and 2-3 Reach) are all in the EC135 and have IFR.


----------



## VentMonkey (Feb 2, 2017)

The A Star is cheap, fast, reliable, and has a remarkably quick start up time, TMK.

A twin-engine aircraft certainly has its advantages, but nothing ever guarantees or offers absolutes in this industry. The majority of HEMS crashes seem to be caused by human error, though mechanical failures do happen obviously. 

Things such as CRM, and the "3 to go, 1 to say no" rule can help augment safety culture at any program regardless if they're twin-engine, single-engine, VFR, or IFR rated. 

Thee biggest thing we harp on is crew safety, if that comes into question regarding a particular mission we don't go; plain and simple.


----------



## CANMAN (Feb 14, 2017)

VentMonkey said:


> This is nothing new to the HEMS community, and is very much a "hot button" issue with some providers swearing that IFR rated twin engine programs are the only way to go allowing at least the reaction time to look for a safe landing (in theory) once you have an engine failure. His paramedic did ask a valid question, and it was neat he turned it into an article.
> 
> My program is a single engine VFR program, and this actually seems to be the trend with majority of most North American HEMS operations. Cost factors and flight plans are what I hear cited most often in regards to the practicality of a single engine VFR program vs. the costliness of an IFR program. I'm still pretty new to the flight aspect itself, but as time goes by more and more makes sense, or it doesn't...and we don't go.
> 
> Thanks for posting it. It definitely offers insight for anyone looking to jump blindly into HEMS (no pun intended). Maybe @CANMAN will make a cameo regarding the article, he's a well seasoned flight guy.



I tend not to get into the twin vs. single debate a ton anymore, and merely just providing my opinion, which comes from only flying in twins. In just skimming through this article one of the things he talks about is maintaining a safe altitude that will allow for auto rotation if the need were ever to arise. That works great in perfect weather, but in marginal weather trying to maintain a higher level altitude because you're in a single, and always thinking about a single engine failure, can be just the situation that puts you IIMC, which in a single VFR program is much more panic inducing then in a twin IFR program. 

Yes pilot error, poor CRM, and poor decision making makes up for about 90% of fatal HEMS crashes, but if you are part of the 10% which is saved because of redundancy then you likely don't care about the other 90% and you're still here to tell the story. If I had a choice I would take a twin and an IFR rated pilot anyday. My profile picture is of our base-site which sits on a pier in the inner harbor of Baltimore. About 10 years ago my base had an engine failure during short take off in the month of February. With pulling in 120% power out of the second engine they were able to get enough airspeed to climb out of it and safely fly onto a local airport, do a run on, and the crew walk away needing nothing other than a change of underpants. Had they been in a single they would have been in the drink and likely dead before help would have arrived. Thats the 10% scenario, and my friend is hear to tell the story because we work in an all twin program. Not an everyday scenario by any means but enough to sway my vote. People before profits is a huge factor in the industry. 

I also fully believe there are some flights which can be completed safely with IFR capabilities where as VFR programs are likely to turn these down. If weather goes to crap or is not as reported,  filing on the fly, climbing, confessing, and picking up a squawk in a twin IFR capable aircraft to either an airport or VFR conditions isn't a factor, punching into the crap in a single VFR is a huge factor. Around my way we have alot of water and weather conditions change pretty rapidly. 

End of the day if money isn't a factor then why not have twins and IFR rated pilots? I don't ever foresee a time where I would be willing to fly for a "for profit" program but I also realize after being in this industry for a while that there are alot of solid programs that do the same mission but go about it completely different regarding airframes, budget, weather, training, etc and that is ok. I am just satisfied having the options I do in the area I live.


----------



## CANMAN (Feb 14, 2017)

DesertMedic66 said:


> You guys are VFR? I figured the majority would be IFR (at least they are down here).



I think the two biggest deciding factors into VFR vs. IFR programs are cost and conditions (both topography and weather). Area saturated with a lot of hospital based programs then you're likely to see more twins. Area run by a lot of for profit companies then singles are the trend. Singles often do better in high altitude areas, while duals are better suited for extensive over water areas etc.


----------



## VentMonkey (Feb 14, 2017)

CANMAN said:


> duals are better suited for extensive over water areas etc.


I would love to do water ditching drills. One of the bigger regional programs back home has a base that frequently flies from their base to Catalina Island and back. I can only imagine they practice these drills periodically. I believe they're in 135's.


----------



## CANMAN (Feb 14, 2017)

VentMonkey said:


> I would love to do water ditching drills. One of the bigger regional programs back home has a base that frequently flies from their base to Catalina Island and back. I can only imagine they practice these drills periodically. I believe they're in 135's.



You should check out WET. They are a program that does dunker and ditching training. They offer courses at AMTC if you ever go. Awesome class and I know a bunch of the instructors. All personnel assigned to my base (due to location) get the training, we drill routinely, and wear aviation PFD's for a large majority of our flights due to over water time. New HEMS rules that are going into effect soon specify that all crew members will be in PFD's if completing an over water leg and not in auto rotation distances of shoreline, and that will affect all programs nationwide eventually. We have just been practicing it for a while, and crew members can wear their vest anytime they wish. Anyway, if you ever have the chance the training is definately worth it!


----------



## SandpitMedic (Feb 14, 2017)

We have a mix here where I am. We have several single engine Bell 407s... and a few dual engine A109s... I prefer the dual engine for safety and the configuration inside.

From a safety standpoint, dual engine IFR are safer programs- plain and simple.

We must remember, as Canman stated, that most tragic events in avaiation are human error related. Every event is never just the event itself. It is a chain of events that lead to tragic outcomes...

A spare aircraft, with a crew who didn't do a walk around who is stressed about recertification, and a pilot who should have taken a test flight, and a crew who should have turned down a flight, and a pilot who should have timed out and didn't eat dinner... etc etc etc. pick your storyline...

Most of the HEMS crashes are crews and pilots that are seasoned and unfortunately had an episode of complacency.. somewhere along the line, someone's complacency costs lives. "3 to go" and proper planning should be utilized with a fresh set of eyes every time. Pilot error is going to happen... there is not much a crew can do about that besides CRM and ensuring their pilot is good to go.

It is a risky business, and we all know that. We are very aware, and we accept the risks every time we show up to work.


----------



## CANMAN (Feb 15, 2017)

Here's some safety questions for you guys in other programs I am curious about:

1. Does your program fly with dual controls (if able) installed at all other than if pilots are going out for check rides?

2. If available, are your medical crew members trained/proficient in getting the auto pilot coupled up in an altitude and heading mode? 

3. Once there's a weather turn down, regardless of who turns it down, do you guys utilize this time to discuss why you were either safe/not safe to go? And if a pilot thinks they are able to complete the mission but someone has questions do they articulate why they feel ok taking the flight?

4. Does your base track numbers, and is there any pressure at all to fly? Can be direct or indirect...


----------



## VentMonkey (Feb 15, 2017)

CANMAN said:


> Here's some safety questions for you guys in other programs I am curious about:
> 
> 1. Does your program fly with dual controls (if able) installed at all other than if pilots are going out for check rides?
> *The dual controls are not an option in our 407. It might have been in the old triple deuce they had well before my time.*
> ...


All in all I feel safe flying with the bunch I am with, and can confidently say I trust them with my life.


----------



## CrispyCCTNurse (Feb 21, 2017)

I'm not a rotorhead, but want to throw something else out there about the A-Star airframe. Following the FFL crash in July 2015, there were a few articles that came out regarding the crashworthiness of the A-Star's fuel tank(s). Apparently, from what I gathered, this aircraft has a reputation for turning survivable incidents into fatal incidents due to fuel tank failure and post-crash fire. Hopefully, there can be a safety retrofit in the near future.


----------



## SandpitMedic (Feb 21, 2017)

My replies are in bold. Expand below, brother.





CANMAN said:


> Here's some safety questions for you guys in other programs I am curious about:
> 
> 1. Does your program fly with dual controls (if able) installed at all other than if pilots are going out for check rides?
> *Dual controls are out except for check rides. Pedals obviously do not come out. Even in the 109 the controls are out. The 407 must have the litter removed for check rides.
> ...


----------



## RocKetamine (Feb 23, 2017)

CANMAN said:


> Here's some safety questions for you guys in other programs I am curious about:
> 
> 1. Does your program fly with dual controls (if able) installed at all other than if pilots are going out for check rides?
> *No. *
> ...


----------



## CANMAN (Feb 23, 2017)

SandpitMedic said:


> My replies are in bold. Expand below, brother.



It's great you're keenly aware of the implied pressure of having other services around puts on your program, and that you don't let it affect you/your crews decision making. I think a good majority of pushing weather scenarios are based off that simple fact. If you can't do it some other program might. That mindset is what gets people killed and the fact there are still places that helicopter shop, and programs which don't share weather turn downs with other programs blows my mind.


----------



## VFlutter (Feb 24, 2017)

CrispyCCTNurse said:


> I'm not a rotorhead, but want to throw something else out there about the A-Star airframe. Following the FFL crash in July 2015, there were a few articles that came out regarding the crashworthiness of the A-Star's fuel tank(s). Apparently, from what I gathered, this aircraft has a reputation for turning survivable incidents into fatal incidents due to fuel tank failure and post-crash fire. Hopefully, there can be a safety retrofit in the near future.



Same with EC130s


----------



## Handsome Robb (Feb 25, 2017)

CrispyCCTNurse said:


> I'm not a rotorhead, but want to throw something else out there about the A-Star airframe. Following the FFL crash in July 2015, there were a few articles that came out regarding the crashworthiness of the A-Star's fuel tank(s). Apparently, from what I gathered, this aircraft has a reputation for turning survivable incidents into fatal incidents due to fuel tank failure and post-crash fire. Hopefully, there can be a safety retrofit in the near future.



They've had crash resistant fuel tanks for the A-star for a bit now. It's just expensive to do the retrofit so many services aren't doing it. 

You'd think paying out death benefits would be more expensive, never mind the safety of your personnel but hey, I'm just a lowly Paramedic not a numbers guy. 


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## VentMonkey (Feb 25, 2017)

CrispyCCTNurse said:


> I'm not a rotorhead, but want to throw something else out there about the A-Star airframe. Following the FFL crash in July 2015, there were a few articles that came out regarding the crashworthiness of the A-Star's fuel tank(s). Apparently, from what I gathered, this aircraft has a reputation for turning survivable incidents into fatal incidents due to fuel tank failure and post-crash fire. Hopefully, there can be a safety retrofit in the near future.


Here's the news piece that took place after that FFL crash; not sure what the FAA has done if anything since. 

This is just a clip, the full piece went further into the fuel bladder testing and ratings in the A Stars and EC-130's specifically, IIRC.
http://www.nbcnews.com/nightly-news...licopters-pose-potential-dangers-592585283725


----------



## flightguy85 (May 30, 2017)

CANMAN said:


> Here's some safety questions for you guys in other programs I am curious about:
> 
> 1. Does your program fly with dual controls (if able) installed at all other than if pilots are going out for check rides?
> 
> ...



1. Yes, but we're dual-pilot.

2. No, there's no need. Even if we were single pilot, I can't really imagine a scenario in which this would be of benefit. If the helo isn't already in autopilot and the pilot goes unconscious, chances are it will be out of control and unrecoverable before you're able to get access to the cockpit and program the AP. Even if you're able to, what next? If you haven't flown a helicopter before, you're not going to be able to learn in an emergency.

3. Usually, although the med crew stays out of weather decisions for the most part. We always have 2 PIC's with years of experience. I trust their judgment on the weather and don't know of any of my coworkers that have ever felt a flight was taken that shouldn't have been. Plus the pilots will file IFR if there's any concern.

4. Yes, numbers are tracked and broken down each month. Yes there is sometimes pressure to fly from admin but moreso having to do with patient condition and feeling it's more appropriate to drive than fly, not weather turndowns.


----------



## CANMAN (Jun 2, 2017)

flightguy85 said:


> 1. Yes, but we're dual-pilot.
> 
> 2. No, there's no need. Even if we were single pilot, I can't really imagine a scenario in which this would be of benefit. If the helo isn't already in autopilot and the pilot goes unconscious, chances are it will be out of control and unrecoverable before you're able to get access to the cockpit and program the AP. Even if you're able to, what next? If you haven't flown a helicopter before, you're not going to be able to learn in an emergency.
> 
> ...


----------



## SandpitMedic (Jun 2, 2017)

Right. I carry an ammonia tab in my flight suit in case of something like that.
We have auto pilot, and a SAS system, as well as force trim that mostly all the pilots fly with.
We are not trained or rated for anything officially, but I ask a lot of questions, make observations, and learn as much as I can about how to operate the death machine in an emergency. 
You may not become pilot of the year in an emergency, but if you can manage a controlled decent by manipulating the collective while talking with ATC on 121.5 you might just be able to walk away instead of dying instantly on impact.


----------



## RocketMedic (Jun 3, 2017)

This is why I don't fly lol.


----------



## Old Tracker (Jun 3, 2017)

i've only been in a Blackhawk twice. I learned that you keep the muzzle down and the dust sucks really bad when they drop you off to go lay in on the dopers.  Definitely not my first choice for traveling.


----------



## VentMonkey (Jun 3, 2017)

Fair enough, but on the whole I can't say that motor vehicle accidents are far less common, let alone in an ambulance.

Far less sensationalized? Absolutely. Far less common? Hardly.

And to keep it relevant to the thread topic:

Last time i checked, all ambulances are single-engines.


----------



## Old Tracker (Jun 3, 2017)

VentMonkey said:


> Last time i checked, all ambulances are single-engines.



True, but ours have duallies in the back.


----------



## DPM (Jun 3, 2017)

VentMonkey said:


> Fair enough, but on the whole I can't say that motor vehicle accidents are far less common, let alone in an ambulance.
> 
> Far less sensationalized? Absolutely. Far less common? Hardly.
> 
> ...



Yessss.... but an ambulance won't fall out of the sky if it breaks down.


----------



## VFlutter (Jun 3, 2017)

DPM said:


> Yessss.... but an ambulance won't fall out of the sky if it breaks down.



You don't really fall, you autorotate ha


----------



## VentMonkey (Jun 3, 2017)

Chase said:


> You don't really fall, you autorotate ha


This is half-jokingly the truth.


DPM said:


> Yessss.... but an ambulance won't fall out of the sky if it breaks down.


And you, sir do not know what you do not know. 

Again, sensationalized. That's a big part of media paranoia. Am I saying there are no inherent risks? Absolutely not, in fact those that go in (i.e., apply) are by no means unaware; especially in this day and age.

The precautions, education, and/ or training @SandpitMedic made reference to in his above post highlights this. Single-engine, dual-engine, ground, or air. We all run risks of untimely misfortunes no matter how well we prepare, however, that is about the best we can do.

However, I'd caution you to think twice about making comments such as yours, even if only meant half-heartedly, without having any firsthand knowledge of the industry and its cadre of people.


----------



## DPM (Jun 3, 2017)

VentMonkey said:


> This is half-jokingly the truth.
> 
> And you, sir do not know what you do not know.
> 
> ...



I understand that, I was merely point out that a ground ambulances safety isn't inherently linked to the ability of its engine to stop it crashing. I don't really think that a redundant engine and the extra power it affords you is quite as necessary in a road vehicle... but I might be wrong


----------



## CANMAN (Jun 4, 2017)

I run more of a risk of dying commuting to work on the D.C. capital beltway than I do at work. Most HEMS crashes are poor weather choice related. There are actually very few things that will cause a catastrophic failure and an immediate uncontrollable landing for those not currently flying....


----------



## MonkeyArrow (Jun 4, 2017)

Is a bird strike an issue for rotor wing aircraft?


----------



## VentMonkey (Jun 4, 2017)

MonkeyArrow said:


> Is a bird strike an issue for rotor wing aircraft?


Yes.


----------

