Results 1 to 19 of 19

Thread: Helo 1 Crash Article

  1. #1
    Member High Country's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    Eagle River, AK
    Posts
    191

    Default Helo 1 Crash Article

    I thought it is a worthwhile read.

    http://www.alaskadispatch.com/articl...troopers-pilot

  2. #2
    Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    alaska
    Posts
    187

    Default

    disturbing!

  3. #3
    Supporting Member iofthetaiga's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    Tanana Valley AK
    Posts
    7,217

    Default

    Sad to say the agency's lack of safety culture has been evident for many, many years. Cooperating agencies are often reluctant to assist them with aircraft (especially rotor wing) missions when they come asking, because of their cavalier (or frankly, ignorant) attitude toward aviation safety, and on at least one occasion, their outright intentional deception about the true nature of the mission. Unfortunately, until they adopt a stringent culture of aviation safety and enforce an absolute safety-first policy from the very top down, nothing will change. I'm not optimistic that this report will cause them to effect meaningful change.
    ...he who knows nothing is nearer to truth than he whose mind is filled with falsehoods & errors. ~Thomas Jefferson
    I would rather have a mind opened by wonder than one closed by belief. ~Gerry Spence
    The last thing Alaska needs is another bigot. ~member Catch It
    #Resist

  4. #4
    Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Location
    northern alaska
    Posts
    1,160

    Default

    What is suprising to me is the lack of;
    1) IFR/NVG training.
    2) Having a fixed duty day with a relief pilot available.
    3) Oversight on risk assessment.

  5. #5

    Default

    Be careful what you ask for. Double or triple the number of paid pilots on standby that can only fly when the weather is clear and the cost could rise to the point that the service is canceled. On one side we lose pilots and passengers when you push too hard. On the other hand you loose people because no one can fly out to help. There is no easy answer. I think the pilot on station is the best to make the go or no go call, not a rule book or people 500 miles away.
    DENNY

  6. #6
    Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Location
    northern alaska
    Posts
    1,160

    Default

    Actually the answers are easy. After flying fixed wing medevacs for many years, you figure out when you are most vulnerable to mistakes. At the end of a 12 hour day you hand the job over to the other pilot who just came on call. Let that pilot make the decisions, you go home and get some rest because you are back on in 12 hours. You never make flight decisions based on monetary gain or severity of the injuries. The less the pilot knows about the nature of the injuries, the better his decisions will be concerning the flight conditions. It sounds as if this pilot became spatially disorientated, you have to be able to transition to instruments and fly your escape route. You don't go in without having a way out. You would have a heading and altitude already in your head if you lost visual flight. You would immediately go on the flight instruments and terrain GPS.

  7. #7
    Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2006
    Location
    Anchorage
    Posts
    3,293

    Default

    What I see in this report was a rescue of a guy who was not seriously injured but who was unprepared or unwilling to take care of himself in the short term and that necessitated a rescue. Personal responsibility was dismissed in lieu of convenience. I think about that scenario every time I go flying or riding. I've talked to guys who've triggered PLBs for conditions that did not constitute an emergency. I'd be embarrassed. I appreciate rescue assets for the life saving services they provide. Outdoorsmen need to be self sufficient and self responsible, at least in the short term. That the locals couldn't get a ground rescue organized? That needs to be reviewed and addressed as well.

  8. #8
    Member Float Pilot's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Location
    Kachemak Bay Alaska
    Posts
    4,218

    Default

    Mr. Pid

    Personal responsibility was dismissed in lieu of convenience.
    Right on target.
    Floatplane,Tailwheel and Firearms Instructor- Dragonfly Aero
    Experimental Hand-Loader, NRA Life Member
    http://site.dragonflyaero.com

  9. #9
    Supporting Member iofthetaiga's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    Tanana Valley AK
    Posts
    7,217

    Default

    I agree wholeheartedly that self sufficiency should be the rule for anyone in the backcountry. I believe rescue should be something organized and offered to you by your fellow humans of their own volition; not ever something you expect, count upon, or summon for yourself. That ideology however, as well as the subject of whether or not the individual's condition/situation warranted rescue in the first place, are completely separate issues from that of the manner in which AST manages the safety of it's aviation program. (At first, I typed the phrase "aviation safety program", but changed that wording because AST doesn't have anything the rest of us in the business would recognize as an aviation safety program. And that's the real issue here).
    ...he who knows nothing is nearer to truth than he whose mind is filled with falsehoods & errors. ~Thomas Jefferson
    I would rather have a mind opened by wonder than one closed by belief. ~Gerry Spence
    The last thing Alaska needs is another bigot. ~member Catch It
    #Resist

  10. #10
    Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Location
    East Haddam , Connecticut
    Posts
    111

    Default

    Well the NSTB has there own agenda- I will wait for the FAA report before I will comment on this.

  11. #11
    Member AK-HUNT's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2006
    Location
    Valley
    Posts
    1,029

    Default

    ??????????

  12. #12
    Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Location
    northern alaska
    Posts
    1,160

    Default

    Public use aircraft are not under the FAA's jurisdiction. They have the ability to operate outside of the rules. Not always with the best results unfortunately.

  13. #13
    Supporting Member iofthetaiga's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    Tanana Valley AK
    Posts
    7,217
    ...he who knows nothing is nearer to truth than he whose mind is filled with falsehoods & errors. ~Thomas Jefferson
    I would rather have a mind opened by wonder than one closed by belief. ~Gerry Spence
    The last thing Alaska needs is another bigot. ~member Catch It
    #Resist

  14. #14
    Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2011
    Location
    Tennessee
    Posts
    1,461

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by pipercub View Post
    Public use aircraft are not under the FAA's jurisdiction. They have the ability to operate outside of the rules. Not always with the best results unfortunately.

    That doesn't sound plausible. Are you sure about that? And are you saying that such outfits as the Alaska State Troopers don't have to follow the FARs? That would mean that their pilots don't even require a pilot's certificate.

  15. #15
    Member AK-HUNT's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2006
    Location
    Valley
    Posts
    1,029

    Default

    Correct. Fairly well known.

    "have the ability to" is key. If they hire guys without pilots license that may draw some attention.

    If they fly aircraft over gross as policy or put engines on aircraft that me and you can't, well that doesn't.

  16. #16

    Default

    I think they do not operate under part 135 but part 91 rules.

  17. #17
    Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2006
    Location
    Anchorage
    Posts
    3,293

    Default

    1. PUBLIC AIRCRAFT DEFINITION.
    a. Background. In recent years, there has been an increasing interest in matters involving operations of public aircraft, which are generally exempt from compliance with the Federal Aviation Regulations.
    Source: http://www.faa.gov/documentLibrary/m...C%2000-1.1.pdf

  18. #18
    Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    alaska
    Posts
    187

    Default

    An entity that operates loosely or are exempt from the regulations that are implemented for the majority of us will always have a higher mortality rate.
    To mitigate the risk it is all the more important to have a strong chain of command and redundancy. It is very clear that the DPS has neither.

  19. #19
    Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2011
    Location
    Tennessee
    Posts
    1,461

    Default

    [QUOTE=Mr. Pid;1366568]Source: http://www.faa.gov/documentLibrary/m...C%2000-1.1.pdf[/QUOTE\\

    Absolutely mind boggling! It appears that the aircraft aren't required to carry an Airworthiness Certificate, and the pilots aren't required to possess valid Pilot Certificates.

    Now I see why a F&W Protection Officer, testifying in court, said that in his 2,500 hours he had only flown through Merrill Pass once, and that on a clear and sunny day. He further testified that he'd never fly through that pass again. Mind boggling.

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •