Originally posted by ATLcrew
View Post
Announcement
Collapse
No announcement yet.
Medevac helicopter crash tragedy in Ohio.
Collapse
X
-
Les règles de l'aviation de base découragent de longues périodes de dur tirer vers le haut.
-
Pictures show that the aircraft came down in thick woods so autorotation would probably not have helped. As for the cause...putting aside pilot error for now, most helo accidents are caused by a gearbox problem or tail rotor failure. The only incident that I can recall involving a main rotor failure was caused by a mechanic failing to use or not fitting the correct locking washers on the rotorhead bolts.
As always, the FAA/NTSB report will tell all.If it 'ain't broken........ Don't try to mend it !
Comment
-
Originally posted by Gabriel View PostThat said, many twins have a dead-man's curve too. If you are hovering at a somehow high altitude (between ground effect and a few hundred feet) it may be not recoverable either.
Some of them (cat B) don't have enough OEI performace to achieve OGE hoover.
Some of them (cat A) do.
Some can be operated as cat B or cat A depending on the weight, altitude and temperature.
So are you suggesting twin Cat A ops only to be allowed?
Caveats: as every opinion I post here is instantly turned into a black-and-white distortion, let me clarify a few things. First of all, I am not under the illusion that two engines means twice as safe. There are still many common threats shared by twins and singles, tail rotor failure being the most obvious (although very rare). I'm also aware that non-Cat A twins are not fail-passive in the event of a single engine loss and may not be able to remain airborne. But even they have some mitigating degree of control in an emergency descent. Even in the most vulnerable situations, they have a better chance of making a survivable landing. Lastly, yes, I am aware that single engine turbines are extremely reliable and engine failures statistically rare.
But all this considered, if we are being charged ten to twenty times the operating cost of a helicopter flight, we deserve to be assured the lowest risk and the safest equipment, and the industry has developed that equipment specifically for this purpose.
Now, on the other hand, if you want to only charge me $1500, you can pick me up in your 407.
Comment
-
(Pst!, guys, not that I agree 100%, but I actually liked that last post from Evan)
--- Judge what is said by the merits of what is said, not by the credentials of who said it. ---
--- Defend what you say with arguments, not by imposing your credentials ---
Comment
-
Originally posted by 3WE View PostOn a related note- are any of these things that Evan and Gabriel are speaking of in their pontificating peeing contest provide insight to this crash?
Have we ruled out IMC and collision with something, other mechanical failures, pilot error and meteors?
--- Judge what is said by the merits of what is said, not by the credentials of who said it. ---
--- Defend what you say with arguments, not by imposing your credentials ---
Comment
-
-
Originally posted by Evan View Post$1501.00
You're very welcome.
Now, let's talk about this "lifeflight" industry of which you speak, and which you describe as yet another example of aviation, as a business sector, robbing you dry. Keep in mind that the $25,000 bill includes not only the flight, but any medical care the patient receives during that flight, and considering that most airlifted patients are critical trauma cases, odds are there is an ALS ticket generated, and the price is in line with what similar care would cost on the ground. Which brings me to my next point. If a private carrier is contracted to provide 911 emergency transport, they are REQUIRED to respond when requested (provided the weather is legal), regardless of the patient's ability to pay. In other words, same as an ambulance. Now, our local Medevac helicopter operation is run by our county Sheriff's Office, and they do bill for that part of the service, and their collection rate is something like 35%. I doubt it's much better for private carriers who bill the patients directly. Those who get paid by the relevant government fare somewhat better, but my point is very few people actually pay those bills out of pocket. Insurance companies often cover most of the bill, which then opens up the whole can of worms on why health insurance is so expensive, but that's a whole separate conversation. The rest ends up covered by the taxpayers one way or another.
So, I guess my question would be why you want me to pay more taxes for a problem that may or may not exist. Now, if you can show me some definitive data that shows that in those single-engine "for profit" medevac helicopter crashes a second engine would have saved the day, I'll be glad to revisit the topic. But if the gist of your argument is that those bastards charge way too much for just one engine, that's not a safety-related argument, but an emotional (and I suppose a financial) one.
Comment
-
Originally posted by ATLcrew View PostWhat's the price point above which you require a twin? Also, what's the price point above which you will only accept a Sea Dragon?
Thanks in advance.Les règles de l'aviation de base découragent de longues périodes de dur tirer vers le haut.
Comment
-
Originally posted by ATLcrew View PostNow, let's talk about this "lifeflight" industry of which you speak, and which you describe as yet another example of aviation, as a business sector, robbing you dry.
I'm also not aware of ground ambulance services charging $15,000 to $25,000, on average, for less than an hour of service. When my father had a full cardiac arrest, the total ambulance service bill was under $1500.
Take the Bell 429. You have an operating expense around $1000/hour, or, factoring in all variable and fixed expenses associated with operations, around $2,500/hour. So let's be generous and say $3500/hour. Expediency being the point, many, if not most, of these bills are for an hour or less of actual service. I'm sorry, but I fail to see the ecomomic barrier to operating a Cat A, medevac helicopter there.
But allow me to point out the folly of your main point. You say:
if you can show me some definitive data that shows that in those single-engine "for profit" medevac helicopter crashes a second engine would have saved the day, I'll be glad to revisit the topic.
Many years later, that effort has evolved into the 429, which also has fail-passive OEI capability, and which has been a successful product in the market. Now, ask yourself: why would customers be willing to pay close to $7M and around twice the operating costs for a light helicopter with not much more interior room than a very dependable 407? Because their 407's keep going down in flames? Or because they are placing value on safety from a preventative, visionary standpoint?
Comment
-
Originally posted by ATLcrew View PostPerhaps. But that's how it DOES work.
You don't need a body count to justify precautions and redundancies. You just have to care about human lives and have some ability to think ahead.
It's called aviation safety, not aviation patchwork.
Comment
-
Originally posted by Evan View PostYou don't need a body count to justify precautions and redundancies. You just have to care about human lives and have some ability to think ahead.
It's called aviation safety, not aviation patchwork.
Comment
-
Originally posted by ATLcrew View PostSo, why aren't you demanding exclusively Sea Dragons then? (for those who don't know, the helicopter in question has THREE engines).
Comment
Comment