Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Medevac helicopter crash tragedy in Ohio.

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #16
    Originally posted by ATLcrew View Post
    I don't know that very many chopper crashes in general (and medevac specifically) have been due to engine failure (or engine problems of any kind). In fact, as some of my rotorhead friends tell me, an engine failure is one of those precious few helicopter problems that probably WON'T kill you.
    On 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 and know that it’s failure of the number one engine and botched autorotation?
    Les règles de l'aviation de base découragent de longues périodes de dur tirer vers le haut.

    Comment


    • #17
      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


      • #18
        Originally posted by Gabriel View Post
        That 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?
        Short answer: yes. Why? Because the only detriment and barrier to Cat A is acquisition and operating cost. Now, to be clear, I am referring to the industry that charges $12,000 to $25,000 (on average) for less than an hour of flight time. To answer the question: "what price for safety", there's your answer. They are already charging astronomical rates in a market without pricing regulation, and people are forced to pay it, so I see no reason why the public cannot be assured the safest equipment in return. And on the plus side, operators will see a favorable reduction in insurance rates with Cat A.

        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


        • #19
          (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


          • #20
            Originally posted by 3WE View Post
            On 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?
            No,

            Have we ruled out IMC and collision with something, other mechanical failures, pilot error and meteors?
            No, in particular we have not ruled out meteors, but we have confirmed collision with another celestial body.

            --- 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


            • #21
              Originally posted by Evan View Post
              Now, on the other hand, if you want to only charge me $1500, you can pick me up in your 407.
              What'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.

              Comment


              • #22
                Originally posted by ATLcrew View Post
                What's the price point above which you require a twin?
                $1501.00

                You're very welcome.

                Comment


                • #23
                  Originally posted by Evan View Post
                  $1501.00

                  You're very welcome.
                  Much appreciation. I won't ask where you pull that number from, firstly because I have a pretty good guess as to its origins, and secondly because it's not immediately germane.

                  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


                  • #24
                    Originally posted by ATLcrew View Post
                    What'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.
                    I’d also ask Evan for his thoughts on the ticket price structure of Air Choice One versus Cape Airways and how we might adjust for the reliability of one PT-6 vs two Lycomental IO-lotsacubicinches-236As?
                    Les règles de l'aviation de base découragent de longues périodes de dur tirer vers le haut.

                    Comment


                    • #25
                      Originally posted by ATLcrew View Post
                      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.
                      Since when am I describing aviation as "a business sector, robbing us dry"? Remember, I'm the one willing to pay a bit more for added safety (and dignity). My gripe with the industry is that it is becoming too profit-driven at the expense of these things (see: Race to The Bottom). But that doesn't apply to this discussion. Competitive pricing doesn't exist here.

                      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.
                      This is not how aviation safety should work. It should not be a series of hindsight improvements. It should be "won't happen", not "won't happen again". It should rely on vision and deductive reasoning to prevent accidents before they happen, and it does. The industry recognizes that a vulnerability exists for single-engine ops in a critical but often necessary phase of flight, i.e. the 'dead man's curve', for which a fatal outcome is likely and for which only a second engine having a sufficient power rating can overcome. They also know that crashes have occurred due to this vulnerablily, but more importantly, they know that the potential for tragedy exists. So what do they do about this? Do they wave it off as an 'emotional' concern? No, they respond by developing aircraft to meet this demand. The Gemini xl had redundancy far beyond what sceptics looking at statistics might have deemed necessary, including separate transmissions, separate freewheels and separate fuel systems. It was designed with low altitude OGE hover ops in mind, such as winching and rappelling, placing a higher value on human life than sceptics might have done. It was the product of preventative vision. You might say it was overdesigned, but then you are probably not hanging beneath it over a mountainside on a regular basis.

                      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


                      • #26
                        Originally posted by Evan View Post
                        This is not how aviation safety should work.
                        Perhaps. But that's how it DOES work.

                        Comment


                        • #27
                          Originally posted by ATLcrew View Post
                          Perhaps. But that's how it DOES work.
                          Right. So that's why we have three or even four, dual-channel flight computers on modern airliners? Because of crashes where the third or fourth one saved the day?
                          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


                          • #28
                            Originally posted by Evan View Post
                            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.
                            So, why aren't you demanding exclusively Sea Dragons then? (for those who don't know, the helicopter in question has THREE engines).

                            Comment


                            • #29
                              Three engines...four...

                              Ideally we need parachutes and padding systems to make crashes much more survivable...why not that?
                              Les règles de l'aviation de base découragent de longues périodes de dur tirer vers le haut.

                              Comment


                              • #30
                                Originally posted by ATLcrew View Post
                                So, why aren't you demanding exclusively Sea Dragons then? (for those who don't know, the helicopter in question has THREE engines).
                                Same reason we have ETOPS. Two engines are sufficient to be reasonably safe. You see, aviation safety isn't fanatical either.

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X