Air Corps air ambulance

[Rhodes]

Statement – 4 pm, Thursday 23 February, 2012.

Air Corps Complete Five Air Ambulance Missions in last 60 Hours

The Air Corps successfully completed five air ambulances in the last 60 hours using a variety of aircraft types and was also tasked in the provision of top cover for a search and rescue operation off the coast involving the Irish Coast Guard.

The air ambulance missions were completed using both fixed wing and rotary aircraft and took place on island, to the United Kingdom and also to mainland Europe.

The first air ambulance was completed by an AW139 helicopter using night vision goggles. The helicopter successfully completed its mission when it landed in Casement Aerodrome, Baldonnel in the early hours of the 21st February. No further details are available for reasons of patient confidentiality.

The second air ambulance was completed by the Learjet fixed wing aircraft which transported a patient and HSE team from Casement Aerodrome to RAF Northolt for onward road transport to a London Hospital. This mission was successfully completed at 5.50 pm on the 21st February when the Learjet landed at RAF Northolt.

The third air ambulance was completed by a CASA fixed wing aircraft which transported a patient and HSE team from Casement Aerodrome to Manchester Airport on 22nd February. The CASA landed at 4.20pm and was met by an ambulance which transported the patient and HSE team to a hospital in the city.

The fourth air ambulance was completed by the Learjet fixed wing aircraft which transported a patient and HSE team from Casement Aerodrome to Prague Ruzyně International Airport, Czech Republic. The Learjet landed at 11am and the patient was transferred into the care of the local Medical Services.

The fifth air ambulance was completed by an AW139 helicopter which transported a patient and HSE team from Casement Aerodrome to Newcastle Airport, England, today. The AW139 departed at 10.00am and landed in Newcastle at 11.45am where the patient completed their journey by road.

Today’s final air ambulance was the 16th completed by the Air Corps in 2012 and the 5th in the last three days.

[sofa]

Well done all who were involved

[Rhodes]

News report on today's RTE News2Day off yesterdays air ambulance mission.

Coverage starts at about 40 seconds in.

http://www.rte.ie/player/#v=1137544

[Rhodes]

Video of an air ambulance mission on the 23rd February.

[Helihead]

I believe the mass exodus of retiring pilots has started in the Don. What's happening with the Athlone gig, 1st Feb has come and gone?

[Rhodes]

Video of an air ambulance mission on the 22nd February.

[Charlie252]

Breaking my own rules here. AW 139/135 Class 1 Helicopter performance covers 'confined area' approaches and departures, a procedure that all 139 and 135 pilots in the air corps are trained for and practice on a regular basis. Even if a hospital pad is not certified for Class 1 helipad or elevated helipad performance figures (which would cover the entire Irish island as nothing is certified or surveyed to those standards), a Class 1 arrival and departure may still be flown to those pads, and in the expected environmental coditions and at pad elevations in Ireland, no penalty at the projected weights would be expected.

All AC ops are governed by the ARM (Air Corp Regulations Manual) which mirrors the EASA and JAR operations manuals requirements. All the parts are there A through F, with sub-elements for each aircraft and for specific operations. Obviously there are sections in the manuals that do not appear in a regular AOC governed operations and which are not privy to FOI for security reasons. Nor are they published in the 'General IDF Online' intranet files. But this is not about that.

The aircraft (both 139 and 135) is certified to JAR and EASA standards. The IAC has made 'best international practice' it's highest aim. All 'normal' procedures are conducted to the same JAR, Agusta and Eurocopter standards WHERE APPLICABLE and if an audit of the EMS procedures was to be undertaken by an independant authority, I have no doubt that the regulatory authority, in this case the IAA would be satisfied. If the use of NVG is an issue, then that is to be taken in hand by the IAA, and again, I have no doubt that this is currently in the works.

The approval of passengers who are NOT employed by the public service (i.e. EMS contracted crew) would of course be covered by a contract and I would assume would use the standard JAR conditions but with a written agreement. HSE crews are a part of the public service and therefore are covered by the standard agreements (SLAs) and would require no additional cover. Ref the above.

The lifeport and current EMS kits that the Air Corps posess are civilian certified for multiple airframes including the 139, 135 and Lear and are an incredible piece of kit.

The Air Corps NVG servicing is regulated by the Director of Ordnance and the GOC. Their training is included in ARM Part D and is based on the most current military doctrine from the US and UK militaries. All current civilian (out of the ROI) NVG doctrine is based on these and is the same or LESS stringent than either. The IAC have taken both doctrines and is MORE stringent than either for qualification and continues to be more stringent for subsequent requalification.

The only decision to be made is what level of training to give to the EMS crew if they are to 'patter' the aircraft to an EMS site. If they are AC crewmen, no further training is required. If they are HSE personnel, extensive training is required. If it is easier (and cheaper) to train a current crewman with the NVG skills and all to paramedic standard than to train a HSE paramedic to crewman standard then that will obviously be looked at. I think I know the result. Helicopters are expensive to fly.

Dammit! I said I wouldn't do this again!

I had to decided to stay away but this post troubled me.. again.

The description of the various levels of management and control in the AC sounds reasonable and indeed professional, on the surface this sounds like a sound organization with a robust structure.. However..

“All AC ops are governed by the ARM (Air Corp Regulations Manual) which mirrors the EASA and JAR operations manuals requirements. All the parts are there A through F, with sub-elements for each aircraft and for specific operations. Obviously there are sections in the manuals that do not appear in a regular AOC governed operations and which are not privy to FOI for security reasons. Nor are they published in the 'General IDF Online' intranet files.”

I am sure the AC ARM does “mirror” the JAR ops manuals, however it is not JAR Ops compliant nor does any JAR regulator have oversight of the manuals contents.
Furthermore sections that are secret would obviously be in contravention of JAR compliance.
So the manual is not JAR compliant nor is there any oversight from a competent regulator, other then from within the AC, given that a number of accident reports have identified a lack of control or management of Air Operations I think it is reasonable to assume that the regulations in the ARM are not rigidly enforced.

“The IAC has made 'best international practice' it's highest aim. All 'normal' procedures are conducted to the same JAR, Agusta and Eurocopter standards WHERE APPLICABLE and if an audit of the EMS procedures was to be undertaken by an independant authority, I have no doubt that the regulatory authority, in this case the IAA would be satisfied.”

Indeed “best international practice” is a laudable aim and following manufacturers SOP’s is good practice, however, to follow best practice there are certain minimum requirements.

Do AC pilots have a license?, how are they assessed on a periodic basis? what are the currency requirements? are they always followed? or sometimes does exigencies of the service replace these most basic requirements?
How are examiners selected, and more importantly how are they checked?
Who actually manages the operations on a daily basis? what is there experience level? are they assessed? do they report to higher authority on the operation?(and I don’t mean the number of missions per day) I mean can they assess the level of compliance of the various units to the SOP’s, can they actually comment on the competency of the crews?

I believe that despite the production of manuals that “mirror” JAR, the AC does not have the structure or the will to actively enforce the regulations.
The recent accident report outlined some issues around the area of flight authorization, namely flight detailing and it appears the AC was happy to allow there own regulations to be contravened. Also the report mentions a Low Level abort procedure that was NOT practiced as often as required. I think both of these points speak to a lack of robust application of the requirements as laid down in AC manuals.

The AC needs to fully buy into the regulations in its own manuals, it needs to enforce them even if it means a mission is cancelled, it needs to build a proper model around the issue of pilot currency, training and checking that can be audited by a competent agency.
Until this has taken place I don’t think the AC should be engaged in any type of HEMS/Air Ambulance operation

[Goldie fish]

I believe that despite the production of manuals that “mirror” JAR, the AC does not have the structure or the will to actively enforce the regulations.
The recent accident report outlined some issues around the area of flight authorization, namely flight detailing and it appears the AC was happy to allow there own regulations to be contravened. Also the report mentions a Low Level abort procedure that was NOT practiced as often as required. I think both of these points speak to a lack of robust application of the requirements as laid down in AC manuals.

In the civvy aviation industry, there are teams of engineers who deal exclusively, throughout their career with regulation and documentation alone. Unfortunately the nature of the military system you find often that as soon as people have gained expertise in one area, they are promoted to a completely different one. The system does not permit people being retained in one office, to ensure documentation compliance over a prolongued period. The standard of regulation that is required for flight documentation alone, in my opinion dictates that continuity is vital, from a monitoring and compliance factor.
Perhaps it is an area that the DoD need to civilianise, if they cannot ensure that officers in charge of work documents will not be rotated out every 2 years, or on promotion etc?

[Tadpole]

I believe the mass exodus of retiring pilots has started in the Don.

I believe the figure is in the mid 20's. Whats that 20-25% of entire pilot strength?

[GoneToTheCanner]

They'll cope. It didn't cost them a thought when they lost 140 techs in one go in 1988...Oh, wait...

regards
GttC

[DeV]

given that a number of accident reports have identified a lack of control or management of Air Operations

Two as far as I know

Do AC pilots have a license?, how are they assessed on a periodic basis? what are the currency requirements? are they always followed? or sometimes does exigencies of the service replace these most basic requirements?

Licence - yes
Assessed - yes
According to the findings of the Dauphin and PC-9 accidents the crew were current (in the Dauphin there was 1 exception)

Also the report mentions a Low Level abort procedure that was NOT practiced as often as required. I think both of these points speak to a lack of robust application of the requirements as laid down in AC manuals.

To quote the AAIU report:
3. Conclusions
(a) Findings

3. The flight crew were appropriately qualified with valid IAC ratings.

[Charlie252]

Dev,

Accident reports only give a very narrow view of the goings on in an Organization, I know you have attempted to answer my questions however maybe think about the answers again:

Do AC pilots have a license: Yes(Most) its not a requirement and they do not operate the AC machines based on those license's.
Are they assessed: Yes(true they do carry our sim training and ratings) but, would that training stack up against the best industry standard are the assessment standards applied in the same vigorous way as elsewhere, my experience is that they are NOT!

I asked the question about currency, however again not only in relation to the published accidents, but in relation to the general standard of compliance to recency and currency requirements, again in my experience these are taken as guidelines and not absolute minimums as elsewhere..

I agree with the report about the flight crew being qualified and having valid ratings, however, this is only measured against the AC standards which I would argue are not inline with JAR requirements and in fact fall quite a ways short.

I think you also miss my point about flight ops management. Let me explain further:

In other flying organizations Pilot training and checking is a very structured system to ensure regulatory compliance, while achieving this, most organizations will gather data on there operation. Data from Sim recurrent training/checking and from Line checks(not something ever seen in the AC) is assessed and provides data about the level of the operation it can also identify trends or areas that need attention across the pilot body, this data is then used to shape subsequent training events. The Sim/Line check system can then see if the training was effective in mitigating a trend that may have become threat leading to an incident.

This is a reasonably robust system and one practiced across the industry. Does the AC have any idea about the level of it's operation, can they assess compliance of the flight crews, does the training address trends in the flying operation. I think is is obvious that AC system falls well short of "industry best practice"

Would any of this have made any difference in the most recent accidents?

Could it help to mitigate a future threat and avoid another fatal accident?

[Bravo20]

Charlie 252 your arguments are very similar to the arguments put forward by a company that is suing the state because it was not awarded the HELMS contract. Would you be connected in anyway to that company, if you are you should declare your conflict of interest so that the readers here can form their own judgement on the independence of your opinions.

[Charlie252]

No, I am not in any way connected with any company involved in HEMS, nor was I aware that there was such a lawsuit pending.

I am an EX AC member who is acutely aware of the shortcomings in Bal, and I hope that some awareness of the failings of the AC management may somehow lead to change in the Organization, hopefully for the Better.

[Tadpole]

Charlie 252 your arguments are very similar to the arguments put forward by a company that is suing the state because it was not awarded the HELMS contract.

Interesting, hadn't heard this either, pray do tell.
Brings up some interesting points:
1. That a company thinks it can sue the State because it wasn't awarded a contract that never existed. Was there a Request for Tenders? If not what were they not awarded?

2. Does the company feel that EU law for procurement was circumvented? That would be a whole other barrel of monkeys.

3. Does the company feel the IAC in some way are incapable of providing the service, carriage of civil personnel etc?

4. If this is REALLY a charity organisation why is it so animated at the loss of a contract. Surely it's raison d'etre is to get the service in place regardless of who does it. Then again we all know there's no such thing as a full charity organisation, always somebody in the background making money.