Not necessarily.# 5.
I can’t comment as to the validity of this picture. However, on the off chance that it is legitimate, their whole operation needs to be shut down.
I don't know anything about the programs in question, but a reasonable assumption about what point #5 means is that the program represented in the picture adheres to FAA minimums, where other programs in the area have higher minimums, as a matter of internal policy.As for the company pictured, I'm curious why their crew find it acceptable to fly is weather that is less safe than industry standard minimums....
The issue with that is that the CAMTS standard for weather is to be equal to or exceed FAA 135.609 standards. Since it is a CAMTS and FAA requirement for weather minimums there should be no agencies who are operating outside of that (military and possibly law enforcement excluded). Air Methods was one of the bases who turned it down for weather being below weather minimums and they use the 135.609 standards.Not necessarily.
I don't know anything about the programs in question, but a reasonable assumption about what point #5 means is that the program represented in the picture adheres to FAA minimums, where other programs in the area have higher minimums, as a matter of internal policy.
So hypothetically, Program A could turn down a flight because the weather is below their minimums, while Program B accepts the same flight with the same weather, because they adhere to the FAA minimums, which are lower than Program A's minimums. And that may or may not be the right call, as far as safety is concerned.
The FAA minimums for Part 135 cross-country flight (especially at night) are definitely marginal, but not necessarily unsafe……which is why the FAA
It is all speculation at this point as it could be anything from IIMC, CFIT, engine failure/failure to autorotate, etc but weather was a huge factor in it so of course that is a major part to consider. Add a company that openly advertises their weather minimums are different than other bases (even though those other bases use FAA standards) with 2 other companies who turned down the flight for weather minimums, with reports of snow storms in the area, with extremely low temperatures and conditions that could produce icing are all huge concerns and are all very likely to have caused or at least be a major factor.Just because an AirMethods base declined it for minimums does not mean that it was below FAA minimums. We fly at 800/2 quite often being that we are an urban base with multiple hospitals and airports within our service area. Other bases will decline at 1000/3 or even 1200-1500/3+
It is all speculation at this point. Even if they were the first call, and other bases hadn't turned it down, it may have been the same result. Even if the forecast was clear and they encounterd unpredictable IIMC conditions it may have happened the same way.
Right. But if Program A's minimums EXCEED the FAA's minimums, and Program B's minimums ARE the FAA's minimum's, then program B can correctly say "we have different weather minimums", and possibly legally take flights that program A turns down for weather.The issue with that is that the CAMTS standard for weather is to be equal to or exceed FAA 135.609 standards.
Agree, #5 will come back to haunt them I believe in future court proceedings. There is also word that this program had a motto of "we fly what other's can't". From speaking with some people I know in the industry in that area it sounds like frozen precipitation was present, so I'm going to guess OAT and conditions for icing should have been concerns despite ceiling/vis.#5 is poor wording IMO, but that's pretty much what we tell customers. The difference being were IFR.